MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabrielle Appleby, Professor of Law, UNSW Law School, UNSW Sydney

More than two years on, you’d be forgiven for thinking the story of the failure of the referendum on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice has been neatly folded away and filed as a story of inevitable loss. Bipartisanship was essential. The country was not ready. Racism raised its ugly head. The proposal was too radical.

As we explore in our recently released book, contrary to some accounts, the Voice referendum was not doomed from the start. It was a carefully developed proposal for constitutional reform, crafted over more than a decade, supervised by successive federal governments from both sides of politics.

Its defeat was the product of a complex amalgam of factors. The Albanese government announced first and prepared later. It failed to genuinely engage with the First Nations people who had been developing this reform for years. It misread and was over-confident about the political terrain following the Coalition’s 2022 election defeat.

Then there was the No campaign, spearheaded by key opposition figures that openly relied on political lies and conspiracy claims, in a largely unregulated political and media environment.

But we explore an under-emphasised dimension of this story: the government’s own lack of preparation and respect for the reform it had committed to take to the people.

This article is an edited extract from our chapter in the new book The Failure of the Voice Referendum and the Future of Australian Democracy, edited by professors Gabrielle Appleby and Megan Davis.

Announce first, prepare later

We are, unfortunately, seeing the lessons from the 2023 Voice referendum being identified by commentators in the government’s response to the Bondi attacks.

Political scientist professor Chris Wallace observed what she refers to as “a now unmissable pattern in Anthony Albanese’s behaviour: overestimating his political judgement and being closed to alternative viewpoints and advice”.

The Voice referendum campaign required extensive preparation and the humility to listen and respond. Positive structural reform campaigns are hard. A successful campaign required groundwork: sustained civics education delivered to Australian voters, reform of referendum legislation and a holistic response to the challenges of misinformation.

Opposition to reform, on the other hand, is easy. You don’t have to present a coherent alternative proposal, something aptly demonstrated by the No campaign.

None of this groundwork was undertaken prior to the prime minister unilaterally sounding the starting gun for the referendum on election night in May 2022. No one involved in the proposal knew it would become part of the prime minister’s personal election-night pledge. The government’s subsequent attempts to prepare before the referendum were rushed and flawed.

From the moment the referendum was announced, the behaviour was set. Key decisions were made without meaningful consultation. The referendum’s timing, the wording of the constitutional amendment and the composition of advisory groups were all decided without the input of those who came up with the idea.

Outsourcing the politics

The government refused briefings from those involved in the proposal. This left ministers unprepared, unable to explain the genesis of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and unable to articulate the purpose of the Voice.

At the same time, the government remained stubbornly uninterested in proposals from those who had been involved with the Voice process for 12 years. Reforming the machinery of referendums framework (including through the introduction of a fact-checking authority), releasing more details about the Voice’s design and engaging the Australian public through a citizen’s assembly were among the ignored suggestions.

As economist professor John Quiggin recently wrote, reflecting on the prime minister’s response to the Bondi terror attack, Albanese’s instinct is often to make the announcement and “leave the hard yards to others”.

That instinct was on full display during the Voice campaign. Political scientist Mark Kenny astutely observed a year after the referendum that the business (and weight) of politics and garnering bipartisanship was outsourced to First Nations people.

This matters because the Voice was never a symbolic flourish. It was not, as Albanese has since described it, a “gracious” and generous request from First Nations people seeking recognition.

The Voice was a serious and hardheaded reform that emerged from an unprecedented and deliberative process — the First Nations Regional Dialogues and the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The ongoing need

In May last year, Albanese’s government returned with a thumping majority. Some re-imagine the result as redemptive for the defeat of the Voice — or vindication of the result. This fundamentally misunderstands what was at stake.

Looking forward, the need for a Voice has not diminished. If anything, the years since the referendum has reinforced its necessity.

The government is back to cheering for economic empowerment. It turns only to a minuscule group of well-funded Indigenous elites for consultation.

It also has a renewed focus on Closing the Gap. But this comes without addressing the structural reasons for why the gap persists, including the denial of First Nations input about the necessary solutions.

Read more:
Progress on Closing the Gap is stagnant or going backwards. Here are 3 things to help fix it

Some governments are trying to address these challenges at the state level. In 2025, after nearly a decade of negotiation, Victoria enacted legislation to give effect to Australia’s first statewide treaty.

Central to that agreement is a stable representative body, Gellung Warl. This makes permanent (or at least legislates) the First Peoples’ Assembly, empowered to speak to government and parliament on matters affecting Aboriginal people.

The logic mirrors the federal Voice because the need is the same. Without a durable representative institution first, Indigenous participation remains contingent, fragile and easily sidelined.

South Australia was the first state to have a First Nations Voice, and Victoria’s Treaty-as-Voice was next. Yet, they remain fragile reforms and limited to support from the Labor party in each state.

Australia is a federal system governed by a Constitution. We need constitutional guarantees that insulate First Nations people from the vagaries of majoritarian politics.

At present, we appear far from any realistic proposal for constitutional reform on any issue, especially for First Nations. The prime minister has emphatically stated he will not take another proposal to referendum — not this term, and not at all.

But Australia’s democracy and constitutional institutions cannot afford stagnation. They require reconstruction and renewal to reflect the composition and challenges of contemporary society.

Preparing for the future

There will be another moment for structural constitutional change. When that inevitable moment is upon us, our hope is that Australia has developed the constitutional maturity that was lacking in 2023.

Research shows the primary reason Australians voted “no” in 2023 is because they believed there was no mention of race in the Constitution. They ostensibly voted against putting it in.

But the Constitution is imbued with race and it has a races power: a provision giving the Commonwealth the power to make special laws to govern people of a particular race. If Australians are to espouse pride in equality and fairness and the rule of law, constitutional history and civic education are fundamental to this.

When inklings of constitutional change emerge, as they will, lessons from 2023 will be crucial. Sustained civics education must become a permanent feature of our educational curriculum and democratic life, sooner rather than later.

Regulatory reform is essential. Modernising referendum legislation (as repeatedly urged by parliamentary inquiries) can be done now, rather than during a campaign. So, too, can truth in political advertising laws.

One idea raised consistently is the creation of a standing constitutional commission. It would undertake research, consultation and develop future reform proposals. Constitutional change should not be so daunting.

And then there is the hardest work of all: the work of a future proposal itself. Governments must approach structural reform not as a branding exercise or an act of political “courage”. It’s a process that improves Australian democracy and is worthy of sustained and earnest focus and commitment. It demands preparation, humility, openness and sustained engagement.

This is the only way to have all Australians participating in change.

Gabrielle Appleby is currently the Research Director for the Centre for Public Integrity, as well as holding positions as the constitutional consultant to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. She has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council. She was involved as a pro bono constitutional adviser to the Indigenous Steering Committee of the Referendum Council during the First Nations Regional Dialogues and Constitutional Convention at Uluru in 2017. She has continued to provide pro bono assistance to the Uluru Dialogue in the lead up and during the referendum campaign.

Megan has received funding from the Australian Research Council and holds the Balnaves Chair in Constitutional Law, funded by the Balnaves Foundation. She was a member of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, the Referendum Council, the Prime Minister’s Referendum Working Group and Engagement Group and the Constitutional Expert Group.

– ref. Why the Voice referendum failed – and what the government hasn’t learned from it – https://theconversation.com/why-the-voice-referendum-failed-and-what-the-government-hasnt-learned-from-it-255969

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/02/why-the-voice-referendum-failed-and-what-the-government-hasnt-learned-from-it-255969/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tilman Ruff, Honorary Principal Fellow, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne

The New START treaty, the last remaining agreement constraining Russian and US nuclear weapons, is due to lapse on February 4.

There are no negotiations to extend the terms of the treaty, either. As US President Donald Trump said dismissively in a recent interview, “if it expires, it expires”.

The importance of the New START treaty is hard to overstate. As other nuclear treaties have been abrogated in recent years, this was the only deal left with notification, inspection, verification and treaty compliance mechanisms between Russia and the US. Between them, they possess 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

The demise of the treaty will bring a definitive and alarming end to nuclear restraint between the two powers. It may very well accelerate the global nuclear arms race, too.

What is New START?

The New START or Prague Treaty was signed by then-US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dimitri Medvedev, in Prague on April 8, 2010. It entered into force the following year.

It superseded a 2002 treaty that obligated Russia and the United States to reduce their operationally deployed, strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012.

The New START Treaty called for further reductions on long-range nuclear weapons and provided greater specificity about different types of launchers. The new limits were:

• 700 deployed intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (together with heavy bombers)
• 1,550 nuclear warheads deployed on those platforms, and
• 800 launchers (both deployed and non-deployed).

These reductions were achieved by February 5, 2018.

The treaty included mechanisms for compliance and verification, which have worked effectively. It provided for twice-yearly exchanges of data and ongoing mutual notification about the movement of strategic nuclear forces, which in practice occurred on a nearly daily basis.

Importantly, the treaty also mandated short-notice, on-site inspections of missiles, warheads and launchers covered by the treaty, providing valuable and stabilising insights into the other’s nuclear deployments.

Lastly, the treaty established a bilateral consultative commission and clear procedures to resolve questions or disputes.

Limitations of the deal

The treaty was criticised at the time for its modest reductions and the limited types of nuclear weapons it covered.

But the most enduring downside was the political price Obama paid to achieve ratification by the US Senate.

To secure sufficient Republican support, he agreed to a long-term program of renewal and modernisation of the entire US nuclear arsenal – in addition to the facilities and programs that produce and maintain nuclear weapons. The overall pricetag was estimated to reach well over US$2 trillion.

This has arguably done more harm by entrenching the United States’ possession of nuclear weapons and thwarting prospects for disarmament.

As the New START treaty was about to expire in 2021, Russia offered to extend it for another five years, as allowed under the terms. US President Donald Trump, however, refused to reciprocate.

After winning the 2020 US presidential election, Joe Biden did agree to extend the treaty on February 3, 2021, just two days before it would have expired. The treaty does not provide for any further extensions.

In February 2023, Russia suspended its implementation of key aspects of the treaty, including stockpile data exchange and on-site inspections. It did not formally withdraw, however, and committed to continue to abide by the treaty’s numerical limits on warheads, missiles and launchers.

What could happen next

With the imminent expiry of the treaty this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in September 2025 that he was prepared to continue observing the numerical limits for one more year if the US acted similarly.

Besides an off-the-cuff comment by Trump – “it sounds like a good idea to me” – the US did not formally respond to the Russian offer.

Trump has further complicated matters by insisting that negotiations on any future nuclear arms control agreements include China. However, China has consistently refused this. There is also no precedent for such trilateral nuclear control or disarmament negotiations, which would no doubt be long and complex. Though growing, China’s arsenal is still less than 12% the size of the US arsenal and less than 11% the size of Russia’s.

The New START treaty now looks set to expire without any agreement to continue to observe its limits until a successor treaty is negotiated.

This means Russia and the US could increase their deployed warheads by 60% and 110%, respectively, within a matter of months. This is because both have the capacity to load a larger number of warheads on their missiles and bombers than they currently do. Both countries also have large numbers of warheads in reserve or slated for dismantlement, but still intact.

If they took these steps, both countries could effectively double their deployed strategic nuclear arsenals.

The end of the treaty’s verification, data exchanges, and compliance and notification processes would also lead to increased uncertainty and distrust. This, in turn, could lead to a further build-up of both countries’ already gargantuan military capabilities.

An ominous warning

The most unsettling part of this development: it means nuclear disarmament, and even more modest arms control, is now moribund.

No new negotiations for disarmament or even reducing nuclear risks are currently under way. None are scheduled to begin.

At a minimum, after New START expires this week, both Russia and the US should agree to stick to its limits until they negotiate further reductions.

And, 56 years after making a binding commitment in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to achieve nuclear disarmament, both nations should work to implement a verifiable agreement among all nuclear-armed states to eliminate their arsenals.

But Russia, the US and and other nuclear-armed states are moving in the opposite direction.

Trump’s actions since taking office a second time – from bombing Iran to toppling Venezuela’s leader – show his general disdain for international law and treaties. They also affirm his desire to use any instrument of power to assert US (and his personal) interests and supremacy.

Putin, meanwhile, has used of a nuclear-capable intermediate-range ballistic missile to strike Ukraine, made repeated threats to use nuclear weapons against Kyiv and the West, and continued his unprecedented and profoundly dangerous weaponisation of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants.

These moves signal a more aggressive Russian stance that rides roughshod over the UN Charter, as well.

All of this bodes ill for preventing nuclear war and making progress on nuclear disarmament.

Tilman Ruff is affiliated with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the Medical Association for Prevention of War, Doctors for the Environment Australia and the Public Health Association of Australia.

– ref. The only remaining US-Russia nuclear treaty expires this week. Could a new arms race soon accelerate? – https://theconversation.com/the-only-remaining-us-russia-nuclear-treaty-expires-this-week-could-a-new-arms-race-soon-accelerate-269508

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/02/the-only-remaining-us-russia-nuclear-treaty-expires-this-week-could-a-new-arms-race-soon-accelerate-269508/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John White, Associate Professor in Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Deakin University

The Australian authority that regulates pesticides has finally released its long-delayed review of the rodenticide poisons used by millions of Australians to combat rat and mice infestations.

As researchers who study Australia’s amazing native owls (and more recently, the rodenticide poisoning of wildlife), we were extremely hopeful about its findings. We thought this review would make world-leading recommendations that would protect wildlife and set the global standard for regulating these toxic compounds.

Instead, the recommendations from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) leave Australians still reliant on rodent poisons that are responsible for most of the documented impacts on wildlife globally.

Why these poisons are a wildlife problem

Second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) which include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, difenacoum and flocoumafen, are the core problem. These extremely potent poisons prevent normal blood clotting processes and ultimately lead to death, often via uncontrollable internal bleeding.

When a rat or mouse eats a SGAR-based bait, the poison remains in its body for up to a year. This is how it ultimately passes to predators and scavengers such as owls, frogmouths, raptors, quolls and goannas that eat the poisoned animal.

These native animals die slowly and painfully. This process, known as secondary poisoning, is well documented in predators in Australia and globally.

What the review found

The review acknowledges the science and highlights the risks that SGARs pose, not only to our wildlife and fragile ecosystems but also potentially to humans.

However, despite the risks and advice from scientists to ban SGARs, the review proposes keeping SGARs as the primary tool for Australia’s war on rodents. It described them as an “unacceptable risk”, but stopped short of recommending a blanket ban.

The review argues SGARs remain essential for rodent control, especially with rodents developing some resistance to older poisons. The proposed changes focus on mitigating exposure risk to non-rodents. These include changes to labels and the way bait is delivered, and packaging controls. Under these changes, SGARs will remain widely available to the public.

Ultimately the real difficulty – not adequately addressed – is broader than simply preventing non-rodents from consuming baits. The real issue lies with the nature of the toxins themselves.

These poisons are highly effective at killing rodents, but they do not kill them quickly. After eating poisoned bait, a doomed “zombie” rodent will remain alive for several days, potentially up to a week. During this time, their behaviour changes. Normally cautious, these nocturnal animals become slower, disoriented and far more likely to be eaten by predators such as owls (or even your pet cat or dog).

Crucially, these poisoned “zombie” rodents can continue to eat more poisoned bait. By the time they die, they may contain very high concentrations of rodenticide.

Secondary poisoning is a predictable outcome

When a predator eats a poisoned rodent (or any other poisoned species), it also ingests its poison. This is unlikely to cause immediate death, but SGARs accumulate in the liver and remain there for up to a year. With repeated consumption of poisoned animals, the predator reaches a toxic threshold and dies.

Unfortunately, secondary poisoning is not an accidental or a misuse scenario. It is a highly predictable outcome of allowing the use of poisons in our ecosystems that accumulate in the body.

Paradoxically, the animals most affected by SGARs are the very species that help control mice and rat populations naturally. Predators such as owls breed more slowly than rodents. When rodenticides kill predators in urban and agricultural landscapes, rodent problems often worsen and spur further reliance on poisons. This creates a damaging feedback loop that Australia has been reinforcing for decades, one not addressed by the proposed changes.

Many researchers, including our colleagues and ourselves, argued during this review that meaningful reform requires either banning SGARs in Australia completely or severely restricting access so they are not available to the public. Other countries such as Switzerland and Canada have reached similar conclusions, and responded by significantly limiting access to these compounds with the intent of banning them.

Australia’s proposed changes move in the wrong direction, and leave us considerably behind much of the developed world. Australia will continue using rodenticides that cause the greatest harm, such as SGARs. And lower-risk alternatives that use the First Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticide (FGAR), such as Warfarin, face cancellation because they do not contain chemicals that make them bitter an aspect to try and make them less attractive to non-rodent species.

Warfarin-based baits are safer as they do not accumulate in the body of poisoned animals to the same extent and they are expelled from the body more quickly, reducing the risk of secondary poisoning.

Read more:
A dangerous pesticide isn’t being monitored in key bird of prey populations – we’re shedding light on that gap

Restriction will protect wildlife

This review could have broken the cycle of poisoning native Australian predators in the name of rodent control. Instead, it preserves a system that does not work here, or anywhere else in the world.

If Australia is serious about protecting its wildlife while managing rodents effectively, it must confront the role of SGARs directly. Adjusting labels and packaging cannot solve a problem driven by the chemistry of the poisons themselves.

We simply must do better. Until access to these compounds is meaningfully restricted, secondary poisoning will remain an inevitable — and entirely preventable — outcome. Many native animals will continue to die slow and painful deaths.

John White receives funding from various organisations for ecological and toxicological research.

Raylene Cooke receives funding from various organizations to undertake ecological and toxicological research.

– ref. Household rat poisons found to be ‘unacceptable risk’ to native animals. So why aren’t they banned? – https://theconversation.com/household-rat-poisons-found-to-be-unacceptable-risk-to-native-animals-so-why-arent-they-banned-272346

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/02/household-rat-poisons-found-to-be-unacceptable-risk-to-native-animals-so-why-arent-they-banned-272346/

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

As summer has well and truly set in, we hope you’re able to while away some hours in the comfort of air-conditioning. And what better way to spend that time than with some new treats to stream?

This month, our experts are watching the smash-hit ice-hockey romance Heated Rivalry; getting familiar with Martin Scorsese and who he is behind the camera; and keeping the Australian Open vibes going with a new miniseries about Evonne Goolagong Cawley.

We hope you find your next great binge watch in this selection!

Goolagong

ABC iView

Evonne Goolagong Cawley was one of Australia’s greatest champions of all time.

Goolagong, a compelling and inspiring three-part mini-series honouring the Wiradjuri tennis legend, is a rags-to-riches story about a small-town girl with a ball and a piece of 2 x 4 who dreams of one day winning Wimbledon. A little Aussie battler.

Evonne is portrayed by the remarkable Whadjuk and Wardandi Noongar actor Lila McGuire, who delivers a sublime performance that compellingly showcases Goolagong’s vulnerability, resilience, grace and fighting spirit. The ensemble cast of Australian actors provides a rich, talented and authentic foundation for the story.

This series is not just for tennis fans, who will relish the big tournament moments and the portrayal of renowned players of the time, such as John Newcombe, Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert. This is a story for all Australians.

Skilfully directed by Batjala, Mununjali and Wakka Wakka man Wayne Blair, the series offers an in-depth look at the complexities of athletes’ lives both on and off the field, and an intimate portrayal of an Indigenous family’s life in rural Australia during the 1970s.

The mini-series delves intimately into Goolagong’s personal life, the international tennis circuit and what it takes to be the world’s best.

– Liza-Mare Syron

Read more:
Goolagong is a compelling and inspiring mini-series – a story for all Australians

Heated Rivalry

HBO Max (Australia), Neon (New Zealand)

Heated Rivalry, written and directed by Jacob Tierney, has become a massive hit. Rachel Reid’s romance novel was written for a mainly female readership, and it doesn’t quite capture all of the nuances of a gay male relationship. Tierney’s adaptation brings a whole new understanding to the intricacies of gay love.

Heated Rivalry follows the romantic relationship between two rising professional hockey players: the Canadian captain of the Montreal Metros, Shane Hollander (Hudson Williams), and the Russian captain of the Boston Raiders, Ilya Rozanov (Connor Storrie).

Tierney’s perspective makes the pair fully realised people who are each battling their own demons. He emphasises that queer men’s lives aren’t just full of spicy, sexy moments. Often, our sexuality can be a point of difference in how we are perceived in our careers, family lives, relationships and on the wider world stage.

Tierney’s adaptation honours both the women who will come to the show from the novel, and the show’s new male audience. He understood the show had to be spicy and honour the books, but also be authentically gay.

Tierney’s Shane and Ilya cry, have good sex, share their hurts and worries, and work through their vulnerabilities together. All while still being active, attractive and complicated queer men.

– Harry Stewart

Read more:
Why the Heated Rivalry TV series understands gay men better than the book

Beyond the Bar

Netfilx

Beyond the Bar offers a fresh lens on gender, and society’s moral and ethical dilemmas, viewed through the prism of the law. This new 12-episode South Korean limited series is co-created by Kim Jae-hong, who also directs, and Park Mi-hyeon, who is a writer and former lawyer.

It stars two well-known actors who give outstanding performances: Jung Chae-yeon (The King’s Affection) as the young female lawyer, and Lee Jin-wook (Squid Game) as her boss. Creative choices – such as the camera lingering on their exchanged looks – create pauses that underscore their connection. In an unusual representation of a marriage of minds, it becomes clear they admire one another’s ethical judgement and professional success.

The series features female-centred storylines, relationships and legal dilemmas. The number three symbolises balance and harmony. This motif recurs: three women at different career stages, including the female head of the firm signal a shift in sexual politics in South Korea; three sisters struggling with poverty; three female housemates who vow enduring support wherever life takes them.

There are two types of men in the series: men who work supportively with women, and the lazy scheming male lawyers, who are villains derided as “salary thieves”. In contrast the women and their male collaborators strive for fairness and transparency, engaging ethically with arising problems.

I loved the women-led stories and the central relationship, where the expected sexual frisson is replaced by genuine intellectual chemistry.

– Lisa French

Dog Park

ABC iView

Raise a paw if your dog ever helped you to meet a new two-legged friend? The premise of Dog Park capitalises on the fact that pet ownership in Australia is increasing, with canines being the most popular choice.

Roland (Dog Park co-creator Leon Ford) is a middle aged recluse and all-round grump who has a hard time trusting or liking other humans. His sense of dissolution takes a further dip when his estranged wife Emma (Brooke Satchwell) departs for work in the United States, leaving the TAFE career counsellor in charge of his distant teenage daughter Mia (Florence Gladwin) and disdained dog Beattie.

The first turning point of this six-part series occurs when Beattie goes missing and boozehound Roland searches for her at the local park. This is where Roland meets the always sunny Samantha (Celia Pacquola) and a ragtag bunch of overly friendly folks and their fur babies (AKA the Dog Park Divas), all of whom are quite familiar with Beattie already.

The Dog Park Divas dole out life lessons, trying to help slow Roland’s downhill roll. Their interventions slowly begin to take effect – which gives hope that all humans are ultimately redeemable.

Dog Park is tender in a darkly bittersweet way with an underlying theme of connection and chosen family. Beattie (played by a poodle of unspecified breed named Indie in real life) is pretty cute – and proof that dogs really are the superior species.

– Phoebe Hart

Read more:
Dog parks are an unexploited arena for a television dramedy – so now we have ABC’s Dog Park

Mr. Scorsese

Apple TV

Canonisation has an irritating habit of smoothing over the rough, interesting edges. I kept thinking about that while watching Mr. Scorsese. At its best, the series pushes back against that tendency. Chronologically structured, it opens with a rich, evocative portrait of Martin Scorsese’s Italian American childhood in New York, shaped by illness, Catholic ritual and an intense, almost unhealthy devotion to cinema.

The attention given to Scorsese’s student years and early experiments is especially welcome. We see a filmmaker borrowing styles, pushing form, overreaching, then pulling back – trying to invent a language before he fully understands its grammar. That groundwork matters when the series turns to his masterpieces Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas and Casino.

Rebecca Miller’s documentary does an excellent job of cutting through decades of familiarity, reminding us just how abrasive, violent and volatile these films remain.

It is revealing to hear Scorsese and his collaborators reflect on the personal and professional peaks and troughs of his career, especially given how securely he now sits in the cultural landscape.

The only real criticism I have with the series is the relatively limited attention paid to the later films, with some receiving only a perfunctory mention and others missing altogether. In a sense, however, this speaks to the scale of Scorsese’s achievement. There is simply too much ground to cover, and the series flies by. Five episodes could easily have been ten.

– Alexander Howard

Lesbian Space Princess

Netflix, from February 6

In Lesbian Space Princess, outer space emerges as a new and inclusive habitat for a smart, funny story exploring the inner spaces of lesbian consciousness and self-affirmation.

The film pushes hard against the gendered conventions of the sci-fi genre, re-pointing them to unexpected ends.

Can introspective Princess Saira rescue her ex-girlfriend, Kiki, from the evil clutches of a rogue group of incels known as the Straight White Maliens?

Low on self-confidence and belittled by her royal lesbian mothers, Saira sustains an unshakeable attachment to Kiki, a soft-butch bounty hunter who is as attachment-avoidant as Saira is clingy.

Saira battles through the beautifully drawn pink-hued reaches of constellations and moonscapes in a spaceship (depressively voiced by Richard Roxburgh). As she reluctantly traverses outer space, she must step up to its greatest challenge: plumbing the messy depths of her inner world.

Rather than provide lesbian romantic satisfaction or ground its utopian energies in the bold new world of queer community, in the future imagined here the way desire is experienced by the self is more important than who or what it is directed toward.

– Lee Wallace

Read more:
Lesbian Space Princess is a cheeky, intergalactic romp that turns the sci-fi genre on its head

The Pitt, season two

HBO Max (Australia), Neon (New Zealand)

Last year the beloved, award-winning drama The Pitt reconceptualised medical storytelling post-COVID and post-network TV.

Set in a strained Pittsburgh emergency department, and featuring a terrific ensemble cast, the full 15-episode season covered an entire shift, each episode moving hour by hour. Patient and staff storylines, some ripped from the headlines, painted a powerful picture of care and humanity in the face of a broken health system and wider social crises.

Season two has been greatly anticipated. It’s the fourth of July, one of the worst days for accidents and injuries. Burnt-out ER boss Michael “Robby” Robinavitch (Noah Wyle) has one last shift before he goes on extended leave, ready to take his new motorbike (hello, midlife crisis) and get out of Dodge. Clearly things won’t go smoothly.

Just about the whole gang is back – everyone from nurses, cleaners and experienced physicians to student doctors and ER regulars, many still dealing with the tragic events and disclosures of season one. The fast-paced, well-shot show remains adept at balancing dense mental jargon and frank representations of medical trauma with sharp, compassionate characterisation and wry humour. A few episodes in and a new omnicrisis is brewing… It’s compelling stuff.

– Erin Harrington

Stranger Things, season five

Netflix

Beyond its monsters and 1980s nostalgia, Stranger Things resonates because it tells stories of struggles familiar to young people: trauma that lingers, identity that wavers, and friendships that buffer against fear.

And by turning inner struggles into visible monsters, Stranger Things can provide a lens to discuss trauma, identity and resilience. Adults can use the show to talk to teenagers about their own mental health.

The Upside Down is a dark mirror of the Hawkins township – a shadow world where threats feed on secrecy and avoidance. It works as a metaphor for “unseen” unprocessed experiences, shame and anxious avoidance. The young people at the heart of the show must face their fears to overcome their power.

Vecna’s attacks dramatise shame and self-criticism. His voice echoes characters’ darkest self-judgments: Max hears accusations about Billy’s death; Eleven relives failures to protect friends. You can help young people by reminding them the harsh voice in their head isn’t who they are. It’s just a thought, like a bully they can fight.

And at its heart, Stranger Things is a friendship story. The party’s loyalty and shared rituals provide a scaffold against isolation and fear. Rituals of D&D campaigns, walkie-talkie check-ins and bike rides create a safety net. Adults can point out how the characters in Stranger Things share burdens and protect one another.

– Stephen Goldsmith

Read more:
How adults can use Stranger Things to talk to young people about their mental health

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Gay ice-hockey players, lesbian space princesses, and cute dogs: what to watch in February – https://theconversation.com/gay-ice-hockey-players-lesbian-space-princesses-and-cute-dogs-what-to-watch-in-february-273799

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/02/gay-ice-hockey-players-lesbian-space-princesses-and-cute-dogs-what-to-watch-in-february-273799/