MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marika Sosnowski, Senior research fellow, The University of Melbourne

After weeks of bombardments in southern Lebanon that have killed more than 2,000 people and displaced more than one million residents, Israel has announced a ten-day ceasefire with Lebanon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, vowed to keep Israeli troops in southern Lebanon to create a ten-kilometre “security zone”, raising immediate questions about whether the ceasefire would actually stop Israeli attacks against Hezbollah.

After a previous ceasefire in late 2024 ended 13 months of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli troops continued to launch airstrikes and carry out targeted killings of Hezbollah fighters.

People like to bound events such as wars with tidy dates and years. It makes them easier to understand and entertains the fantasy that historic events are neat, with understandable beginnings, middles and eventual ends.

But in reality, the messiness and complexities of war rarely hold to these manmade boundaries.

Instead, even after a ceasefire or a peace agreement is in place, many dynamics of war continue. This is the paradox of such agreements: they might end one phase of a conflict, but they inevitably usher in another.

The good and bad of ceasefires

Take Israel’s war in Gaza as an example.

The war came to an end after Israel and Hamas signed the Gaza Peace Plan, a 20-point deal brokered by the Trump administration, in October 2025.

The terms are relatively broad, vague and aspirational. But the deal has had many benefits. The ceasefire decreased Israel’s bombardments of Gaza. The remaining Israeli hostages captured on October 7 2023 were swapped with Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. Somewhat more aid now enters the strip than during the war.

However, the agreement also created other negative dynamics and enabled many problems caused by the war to continue.

For example, after the deal was signed, the public and media attention shifted away from the violence continuing to be committed by Israel to other events. This has meant that in the wake of the peace deal, near-daily Israeli attacks have continued, but with much less scrutiny. Israeli-supported violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has also escalated.

Humanitarian aid entry into the Gaza Strip also remains vastly below the levels delineated by the peace agreement. And serious discussions about the future governance or development of Gaza – mandated under the peace plan in multiple points – remain uncertain amid the noise of other wars and global events.

We can see similar dynamics in Iran, barely a week after another vaguely worded ceasefire agreement was signed between the US and the Iranian regime.

It appears the regime has taken the opportunity provided by a two-week “peace” to crack down on internal dissent. And in what appears to be an attempt to enhance its negotiating position for future peace talks, the Trump administration has launched a naval blockade of Iranian ports.

The short-term truce between Lebanon and Israel might offer Lebanese civilians some level of reprieve. However, it may also provide Israel with a quiet week away from the media spotlight to reinforce its military occupation of southern Lebanon.

To create Israel’s security zone, Defence Minister Israel Katz said the military would demolish buildings in Lebanese towns near the border and prevent displaced Lebanese from returning to their homes. Netanyahu made clear Israeli troops would remain.

This can all be more easily accomplished with a ceasefire deal in place.

Short attention spans

Globally, dozens of countries are currently experiencing armed conflict. Many people scan the news regularly as a way of keeping informed and bearing witness to the dynamics of these wars, casualty figures and how they might potentially end.

This glorified horror plays into our current “headline culture”, which tends to encourage clickbait, sensationalised content and virality. It also means public attention on a particular conflict is not necessarily driven by the scale of suffering, but by media coverage. Because of digital media, we have now a proximate and persistent view of human suffering and death that does not always translate into ongoing attention and action.

Whether parties to a conflict will reach a ceasefire or peace agreement is certainly worthwhile and important news. However, once a deal is signed, media and public attention often shifts to other more “active” (and also worthy) conflicts. There is currently no shortage of wars to choose from.

Because we believe a conflict has “ended” with a deal, what comes after the ceasefire or peace agreement tends to remain obfuscated or under-reported.

The peace agreement paradox

Ceasefires and peace agreements are certainly not always a harbinger of peace or a neat full-stop to a war story.

Arguably, the parties to these deals are increasingly aware of the “peace” agreement paradox and are making their political and military calculations accordingly.

If we truly want to grapple with what war and peace directly entails for millions of people in an increasingly complex and volatile world, we need to broaden our understanding about what we mean by ceasefires and peace agreements – and keep up a level of scrutiny long after the deals are signed.

– ref. Israel and Lebanon have a ceasefire, but global attention shouldn’t move on. This isn’t a tidy end to the war – https://theconversation.com/israel-and-lebanon-have-a-ceasefire-but-global-attention-shouldnt-move-on-this-isnt-a-tidy-end-to-the-war-280816

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/17/israel-and-lebanon-have-a-ceasefire-but-global-attention-shouldnt-move-on-this-isnt-a-tidy-end-to-the-war-280816/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebekah Moles, Professor in Pharmacy Practice, University of Sydney

The pill is the most common way Australian women avoid getting pregnant. Almost 30% of Australian women who use contraception take the pill.

Now, several state and territory governments are giving women greater access to the pill. Just this week, New South Wales announced it would allow eligible pharmacists to prescribe it to women aged 18 and above, without them needing to see a GP first.

But around the country, the rules governing how women can access the pill through pharmacies vary. And certain types of the pill still aren’t available under pharmacy prescribing schemes anywhere in Australia.

How does the pill work?

The combined oral contraceptive pill is a daily medication that women can take to avoid unwanted pregnancies, or plan when they want to conceive.

The pill contains two hormones, typically oestrogen and progestogen or derivatives of these hormones, which stop the ovaries from releasing an egg each month. These hormones also makes a woman’s cervical mucus thicker, which helps prevent sperm from entering the uterus.

The pill is the most common kind of contraceptive. However, other types are also available. These include progestogen-only pills, otherwise known as the “mini pill”, and intrauterine devices that are implanted in the uterus to prevent pregnancy.

In addition to preventing pregnancy, the pill can also help women manage other medical conditions. These include menstrual disorders, such as heavy bleeding or painful periods. Women who have severe acne or endometriosis may also have less pain when on the pill.

So, what’s changing?

Until recently, women could only access the pill by following three strict steps.

1. visit a GP for a script
2. go to a pharmacy to get a supply of this medication
3. return to the GP when this supply runs out, asking them for a new prescription.

However, federal and state governments are working to simplify this process.

In March, Victoria announced that from July this year, it’d allow women taking the pill for the first time to get it from pharmacies, without a GP prescription. This applies to women aged 18 and older.

Soon after, the federal government said it’d allow concession card holders to access subsidised contraceptives prescribed by qualified pharmacists, without the need to see a GP. This change will come into effect across Australia from January 2027, pending approval from all states and territories.

Most recently, NSW has announced trained pharmacists will be able to prescribe a range of oral contraceptives from June 1, 2026. However, this is only to women aged 18 and above who have a low risk of complications.

These announcements come as trained pharmacists take on a greater role in caring for people with acute and chronic health conditions. Researchers around Australia are currently investigating whether this is a safe and effective way to take pressure off GPs and the broader health-care system.

Training is key

Importantly, these new initiatives haven’t made the pill a fully “over the counter” medication.

Pharmacists who provide a resupply service in NSW, meaning a GP already prescribed the contraception in the past two years, must complete online training modules. Only then are they eligible to resupply up to 12 months of certain contraceptives. However, specific training requirements vary for each jurisdiction.

Under NSW’s new scheme, pharmacists must also have a postgraduate qualification in prescribing. That allows them to prescribe new contraceptives, or a different type of contraception, to a patient.

In certain jurisdictions, and with patient consent, pharmacists must notify the patient’s regular GP if they prescribe or resupply any contraception.

However, using contraceptives carries certain risks. People may be more likely to develop adverse symptoms, such as blood clots, because they have underlying conditions or other risk factors.

That’s why pharmacists must have thorough consultations with patients. This involves screening for risk factors, such as high blood pressure, before prescribing or resupplying contraceptives. And if their consultation raises any concerns, pharmacists must refer a patient to be reviewed by their GP.

For some people, longer-acting forms of contraception such as implants, or forms of contraception not available through pharmacists may be more suitable. It’s best to discuss these options with a GP. It’s also worth noting that seeing a pharmacist shouldn’t replace routine visits to the GP, which are key to monitoring your overall health.

In NSW, about 60 pharmacists have already completed a graduate certificate in prescribing from James Cook University. After also completing a state government reproductive health course, they’ll be eligible to start prescribing certain oral contraceptives from June 1, 2026.

Read more: Do we really need prescriptions for the contraceptive pill?

So, how can I get the pill?

You can find a participating pharmacy by visiting this website or contacting your local state or territory health department.

However, not every pharmacist can prescribe. So if you want to take the pill, it’s best to call your local pharmacy ahead of time. That way you can ask if their pharmacists are eligible to prescribe and/or resupply contraceptives, and discuss any anticipated costs. If they do, ask for a suitable time to go. But be prepared for a longer consultation, rather than a quick visit.

Importantly, seeing a pharmacist doesn’t guarantee you’ll get the pill. Depending on your jurisdiction, they may not be able to give you certain types of the pill or other contraceptives.

Instead, they may refer you to a GP to discuss other options. And if you’re using contraceptives primarily to manage another condition, such as acne, you’ll generally still need to see your GP.

Read more: How to choose the right contraceptive pill for you

– ref. Want to get the pill without seeing a GP? Here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/want-to-get-the-pill-without-seeing-a-gp-heres-what-you-need-to-know-280719

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/17/want-to-get-the-pill-without-seeing-a-gp-heres-what-you-need-to-know-280719/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Viet Nguyen-Tien, Research Economist, London School of Economics and Political Science

When the Strait of Hormuz first closed in March and oil hit US$120 a barrel, a very old question came back: is this finally the moment electric vehicles take off for good – or just another false start?

EVs have been here before. They surged after the 1973 oil embargo, collapsed when oil fell, and surged again. Each wave died when the external pressure eased.

We think this time is different. In a new discussion paper, we argue that the economic case for electric vehicles is now improving on its own terms. This is because of what has happened to batteries, not because of the oil price. The same evidence, though, shows the transition creates new problems as serious as the ones it solves.

Why this time is different

Battery costs have fallen 93% since 2010. That is the number that changes everything. A pack that cost more than US$1,000 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 cost US$108 by late 2025, driven down by a decade of learning, investment and policy support.

Research on the global battery industry finds that every time cumulative production doubles, costs fall by around 9%. More buyers, more production, lower costs, more buyers.

Unlike the 1970s, this loop does not need an oil crisis to keep spinning. Electric cars have crossed lifetime cost parity with petrol vehicles across much of Europe; in the used-car market they now have the lowest total cost of ownership. Newer models even match petrol cars in estimated lifespan – something early EVs could not claim.

Global sales surpassed 17 million in 2024, one of the fastest technology diffusion processes in the history of transport. Norway is near-fully electrified. And Ethiopia reached around 60% EV sales share in 2024, powered by cheap hydroelectricity – some way ahead of the US, for instance, which sits at around 8%.

An economic platform, not just a better engine

The deeper reason this wave will not fade is not technical – it is economic. An EV is a platform. Its value grows as the network around it grows, just as smartphones became indispensable not because of the hardware but because of everything connected to it.

Every charger built makes the next EV more attractive. Every software update raises the value of every car already on the road. Every recycled battery feeds back into the supply chain that makes the next one cheaper. It’s part of the reason some other technologies like hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have struggled to get off the ground in numbers – the tech exists, but all the other elements aren’t quite there.

One study of 8,000 drivers in Shanghai found that range anxiety – the fear of running out of charge – has a real economic cost due to unnecessarily avoided trips. But that cost is falling sharply, not because batteries improved, but because charging networks expanded.

Making real-time charger availability visible could add 6–8 percentage points to market share by 2030. And because EV charging is far more flexible than other household electricity demand, drivers can shift away from peak hours remarkably easily when the price is right – turning the car into a grid asset, able to store and release electricity when needed. These are economic network effects, not engineering features.

Swapping one dependency for another

Ending oil dependence does not end geopolitical exposure. It relocates it.

In late 2025, China introduced rules requiring government approval for exports containing more than 0.1% rare earths. The leverage that once came from control of oil flows now comes from control of processing capacity and component supply chains.

The minerals at stake – lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite and neodymium to name but a handful – carry their own geopolitical risks and, as we have written elsewhere, serious human costs in the communities that mine them. This creates a predictable cycle of social contestation that threatens to stall the transition unless the industry commits to responsible, sustainable innovation.

The metal cobalt traditionally helped EVs travel further on the same charge. And when prices spiked, so did research into making batteries with less or even no cobalt. Today, more than half of all EV batteries sold globally are cobalt free.

Four decades of patent data show the same pattern: higher mineral prices consistently redirect research and development toward mineral-saving technologies.

Recovering lithium and cobalt from used batteries is becoming economically viable too, shifting part of the supply chain away from geopolitically exposed extraction sites. In addition, Norway and other countries are looking to exploit new critical mineral resources to diversify supplies.

The transition is real – but not risk-free

The Hormuz crisis is a reminder of what concentrated energy dependence costs. The EV transition does not need it. The learning curve keeps falling, the platform keeps compounding, the economics keep improving. That is what makes this wave different.

What it does not do is eliminate geopolitical risk. Unlike oil, where leverage comes from energy flows, EV supply chains concentrate power at materials, processing capacity, and technological bottlenecks – supply chains that are highly concentrated and carry their own serious risks. Fuel dependence becomes mineral dependence. That dependence is highly concentrated.

Traditional carmaking regions are already absorbing concentrated job losses, and history shows such disruptions leave persistent scars even if the long-term aggregate effects are positive. Yet electric vehicle assembly is proving more labour-intensive in western countries than expected – requiring more workers on the shopfloor, not fewer, at least in the ramp-up phase. Contrast this with China, where massive automation has led to the creation of “dark factories” where there are so few humans, internal lighting isn’t required.

The same regions facing losses could benefit. But the gains and losses do not fall on the same people. That is where the work remains.

– ref. Electric vehicles pass tipping point, breaking the link with oil prices – https://theconversation.com/electric-vehicles-pass-tipping-point-breaking-the-link-with-oil-prices-280655

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/17/electric-vehicles-pass-tipping-point-breaking-the-link-with-oil-prices-280655/

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

A DemosAU poll has Labor down three points on primary votes since February to just 26%, with Labor and One Nation now tied. The total vote for the Coalition and One Nation was steady at 49% while the total for Labor and the Greens was down two points to 39%.

Other recent federal polls have been much better for Labor than this DemosAU poll, and a Morgan poll that was taken last week gave Labor a big lead.

DemosAU could be an anti-Labor outlier, or it may be picking up a shift against Labor in the last week. We will need to wait for more polls to know what is happening.

This article also includes age and gender breakdowns from a large-sample Redbridge poll, coverage of international electoral events and further analysis of the March 21 South Australian election.

The Poll Bludger reported a national DemosAU poll for Capital Brief that was conducted April 8–14 from a sample of 1,439. Primary votes were 26% Labor (down three since the February DemosAU poll), 26% One Nation (down two), 23% Coalition (up two), 13% Greens (up one) and 12% for all Others (up two).

No two-party estimate was given, but The Poll Bludger said “a seat projection suggests Labor would likely be left scrambling for a minority government with the support of Greens and independents”. Applying 2025 election preference flows would give Labor below a 51–49 lead over the Coalition, their worst result from any poll this term.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval slumped six points to -20, with 46% giving him a negative rating and 26% a positive rating. Angus Taylor’s initial net approval was -3 (28% negative, 25% positive). Pauline Hanson’s net approval was steady at -5 (39% negative, 34% positive).

By 47–28, respondents did not think the United States was a reliable military ally for Australia. By 59–22, they thought the government should distance itself from President Trump rather than closely support him (45–36 in January 2025 at the beginning of Trump’s term).

Morgan poll

A national Morgan poll, conducted April 6–12 from a sample of 1,512, gave Labor 30% of the primary vote (down 0.5 since the early April Morgan poll), One Nation 24.5% (up three), the Coalition 22.5% (down 1.5), the Greens 12.5% (up 0.5) and all Others 10.5% (down 1.5).

No Labor vs One Nation two-party estimate was provided. Labor led the Coalition by an unchanged 56–44 using respondent preferences. They led by 54–46 on 2025 election preference flows, a 0.5-point gain for Labor.

Large-sample Redbridge poll

The Poll Bludger reported on a Redbridge and Accent Research poll for The Financial Review. This poll was conducted March 6–19 from a large sample of 5,563. It did not give a national headline figure, instead focusing on demographic breakdowns.

With young men (Gen Z), Labor had 39% of the primary vote, the Greens 24%, One Nation 19% and the Coalition 12%.

Among young women, the Greens had 38%, Labor 26%, the Coalition 14% and One Nation 11%.

With Millennial men, Labor had 36%, One Nation 26%, the Coalition 16% and the Greens 13%. With Millennial women, Labor had 28%, One Nation 27%, the Coalition 19% and the Greens 15%.

For Gen X men, One Nation had 35%, Labor 32%, the Coalition 18% and the Greens 6%. For Gen X women, One Nation 31%, Labor 29%, the Coalition 21% and the Greens 9%.

For Baby Boomer men, One Nation had 31%, the Coalition 30%, Labor 27% and the Greens 4%. For Baby Boomer women, Labor 33%, One Nation 32%, the Coalition 24% and the Greens 3%.

Combining the Labor and Greens votes against the One Nation and Coalition votes gives the left a 63–31 lead among Gen Z men and a 64–25 lead among Gen Z women. Millenial men gave the left a 49–42 lead, but Millenial women gave the right a 46–43 lead.

Gen X men gave the right a 53–38 lead and Gen X women gave the right a 52–38 lead. Baby Boomer men gave the right a 61–31 lead and Baby Boomer women gave the right a 56–36 lead.

Farrer byelection has 12 candidates

The Farrer federal byelection to replace Liberal sussan Ley will be held on May 9. There are 12 candidates for this byelection, with One Nation, independent Michelle Milthorpe and the Liberals the main prospects. Labor is not contesting.

Coverage of US, Canadian and Hungarian electoral events

On Friday AEST, US Democrats retained a federal seat in New Jersey, but the 11-point swing in margin from the 2024 presidential election results in that seat was much less than the 25-point swing in Georgia in the April 7 special election. I covered this for The Poll Bludger.

Since the 2025 Canadian federal election, the centre-left Liberals have gained five MPs in the House of Commons by defections. On Monday, they won three byelections in seats they already held, and now have 174 MPs, two above the 172 needed for a majority. In swing terms from the 2025 election, the Conservatives performed dismally in all three byelections.

At the Hungarian April 12 election, Viktor Orbán’s far-right Fidesz that has governed for the last 16 years was thumped by a conservative and pro-European party. I covered these events for The Poll Bludger.

More on the SA election

ABC election analyst Antony Green has posted about the final lower house results of the March 21 South Australian state election. I previously covered these results. Only 13 of the 47 seats were “classic” Labor vs Liberal contests, while 25 were Labor vs One Nation.

Labor had big swings in its favour in Liberal and Labor-held seats on narrow margins, but One Nation had big swings against the old Labor vs Liberal margin in safe Labor seats. Labor won Light against One Nation by just 51.6–48.4, down from a 70.1–29.9 margin against the Liberals in 2022.

Preference flows suggest 80–85% of Greens preferenced Labor above either the Liberals or One Nation. Of One Nation’s preferences, 65–70% favoured the Liberals above Labor, while 55–65% of Liberal preferences went to One Nation ahead of Labor.

The primary vote leader won 45 of the 47 seats, with independents winning Finniss (from fourth on primary votes) and Kavel (from second).

We won’t get an official statewide two-party preferred result, but analyst Kevin Bonham estimates Labor won by 57.9–42.1 against the Liberals and by 58.2–41.8 against One Nation. This would be a 3.3% swing to Labor against the Liberals since the 2022 SA election.

In an embarrassment for the electoral commission, 81 additional votes for Narungga were discovered on Thursday in a neighbouring electorate. Narungga was the closest seat at the election, with One Nation defeating the Liberals by just 58 votes.

The extra votes increased One Nation’s lead to 74 votes.

– ref. DemosAU gives Labor one of its worst poll results this term – https://theconversation.com/demosau-gives-labor-one-of-its-worst-poll-results-this-term-280270

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/17/demosau-gives-labor-one-of-its-worst-poll-results-this-term-280270/