Many parts of the federal government’s budget have been hotly debated in recent weeks.

But budgets are dense documents. There are always important measures that receive very little attention. One of these is planned changes to Australia’s child support system. The government has allocated $182 million over the next four years to make the system “safer and more effective”.

Almost one million children nationally are registered to receive child support every year. The amendments would change the way many parents experience the system and provide for their families.

What are the proposed changes?

The proposed changes would encourage child support to be collected directly from wages more often. About half of child support payment arrangements are made privately, which can be hard to enforce.

The government is also planning to release an online tool to help parents select the most suitable collection method.

The proposed laws would also be more flexible, allowing either parent to switch from private to government collection to recover child support debts.

There’s also funding to crack down on people who repeatedly don’t lodge tax returns to reduce the amount of child support they owe.

A primary aim of these reforms is to address unfair outcomes linked to Family Tax Benefit Part A, a government payment that helps mainly lower-income families (including many single parents) with the cost of raising children.

When child support is unpaid, delayed, or underpaid, payees (mostly mothers) can lose access to higher government payments or face unexpected debts because government payments are linked to expected child support. Single mothers with young children almost always carry the greatest financial burden of non-payment because they are less likely to be employed than other mothers.

Tackling financial abuse

Under the changes, late or unpaid child support is increasingly being framed as financial abuse. According to a government media release:

some parents deliberately choose to weaponise the scheme, including by deliberately minimising or under-reporting income to minimise their child support obligations or by underpaying, not paying or threatening to stop paying their child support.

The government’s budget statement draws on the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s 2025 report The Weaponisation of Child Support. The ombudsman’s media release refers to “widespread manipulation and weaponisation” of child support.

The ombudsman’s report relies heavily on complaints and evidence based on samples recruited through advocacy networks. Given the lack of representative data, claims that the weaponisation of child support is widespread remain difficult to substantiate.

That’s not to say that economic abuse isn’t a serious problem. It certainly is, and it demands urgent action. Women should never be abused or controlled through child support payments.

However, abuse is just one of many problems plaguing the child support system, and one of many reasons why men fail to meet their financial obligations. Framing it all as deliberate abuse risks oversimplifying a complex problem.

Why don’t people pay up?

“Can’t pay” is different from “won’t pay”. It’s not always easy to tell which is going on.

For some separated fathers, rising housing and living costs can make it harder to meet child support obligations consistently.

Of course, these broader financial pressures affect many Australian families, especially single-mother families and children.

Although reliable Australian evidence on the reasons for non-compliance is currently lacking, evidence from the United States shows key reasons for non-payment stem from payers having difficulty finding work or insufficient income despite employment.

These are not reasons for people to avoid paying what they owe, but they do explain that there isn’t always ill intent.

What else needs attention?

There are more fundamental structural challenges facing the child support system that are missed with a narrow focus on financial abuse.

The formula for how child support is calculated is complex, and difficult for many parents to understand. Parental disputes often arise over reported income and parenting arrangements where one extra night of care can significantly change payments.

Child support debt nationally continues to rise. It was $1.6 billion in 2021 but has now reached $2 billion.

Rising debt does not automatically mean rising non-compliance. Old debts can linger for years, and can arise for many reasons besides deliberate non-payment. The Australian National Audit Office is investigating Services Australia’s use of its powers to recover child support debt. Stronger enforcement might follow.

Evidence also shows separated parents often see the child support system as difficult to navigate, administratively heavy and unfair.

While tackling non-compliance and family violence is important, attention is also needed on updating the actual costs of raising children, ensuring the formula remains fair and income support payments are adequate, recognising that many young adults need financial support beyond age 18 and the need for better data to monitor the system.

The current framing of the child support reforms risks alienating fathers, which won’t help compliance. What will help is confronting the identified structural problems facing the child support system and acknowledging the broader economic challenges facing families.

Until these fundamental issues are addressed, and emotionally charged terms such as “weaponisation” don’t dominate the debate, the child support system’s ability to support children and earn public trust remains limited.

Bruce M Smyth receives funding from La Trobe University, and the University of Canberra as an external Chair of its Human Research Ethics Committee. He has received funding from the Australian Government Department of Social Services, and was a member of the Expert Panel on Child Support (2024-2025). The views expressed here are the author's own.

It’s now a common experience to receive an AI-generated email that’s robotic and hollow, or get a stream of useless chatbot responses when you just need some help from customer service.

Worse yet, some people will dose up entire slide decks and project documentation with AI slop. Then there are the infamous cases of hallucinated references in a report by consulting firm Deloitte and in dozens of papers at a top AI research conference earlier this year.

The jagged frontier of AI continues on its paradoxical route. On the one hand, there’s increased adoption. On the other, increased concern about the limitations and risks posed by the technology.

While “slop” – in the context of poor quality AI content – was Merriam-Webster dictionary’s word of the year for 2025, tech executives are still keen for us to think differently, to view AI tools as cognitive enhancers.

But the industry doesn’t just facilitate slop. It’s also rife with “nothingburgers”. These are AI non-events that were wildly promoted and highly anticipated, but failed to deliver as expected in the real world.

An ‘education revolution’ that’s still pending

Education, despite being one of the first victims of AI-driven plagiarism, was touted to be on track for a technological revival through AI tutors and personalised learning.

In 2023, OpenAI, Microsoft and the Gates Foundation supported and funded the widely respected online learning non-profit Khan Academy to build Khanmigo, an AI tutor. Founder and CEO Sal Khan claimed Khanmigo would “revolutionise education” in a TED talk viewed by millions.

Three years later in 2026 the revolution is still pending, while Khanmigo has been declared dead. In Khan’s own words, “for a lot of students, it was a non-event”. Khanmigo was designed not to provide direct answers in order to encourage learning and exploring. In practice, students didn’t engage at all.

Many universities were quick to build AI tutors, but hard data on actual contributions to student success remains to be seen.

Cognitive offloading (using AI to reduce mental effort) and increased access to AI tools is a further contradiction in education. It’s in the interest of AI providers to get users hooked, so they will write more prompts and use more tokens.

Prompt chaining is a creative technique used by all most advanced AI models to predict potential next tasks as part of the response to the original prompt. A chatbot might answer a question about a classic novel, and then follow it with something like “would you like me to draft an essay addressing your question in the context of postmodern literature?”.

While this increases AI model usage, it also increases cognitive offloading and begins to shape how students think and acquire knowledge – which doesn’t necessarily lead to better educational outcomes.

AI agents can’t replace people

On paper, the arrival of AI agents was a welcome addition to workplaces burdened with repetitive tasks involving multiple systems and data sources. More capable than chatbots, agents can operate on their own and make decisions to complete well-defined tasks.

It didn’t take long for the rhetoric around AI agents to step up a notch when Twitter’s billionaire co-founder Jack Dorsey (who had already laid off 40% of workforce at his fintech company Block), claimed AI agents can replace line managers and their function of routing information up and down the organisation hierarchy.

We don’t have to look far for a non-event. When AI startup Every put this theory into practice, it quickly found out AI agent line managers in a team meeting resulted in endless chatter with no decisions or actions that cost millions of tokens.

Leading AI CEOs Sam Altman (OpenAI) and Dario Amodei (Anthropic) were bold and loud in 2025 with their claims of “wipeout of entry-level jobs” and “job apocalypse”.

But as their companies plan to go public in the next few weeks, both CEOs have walked back these claims. And reports from the CEOs of Uber and Microsoft show AI budgets are costing more than the salaries of human experts doing the same work.

AI isn’t revolutionising science, either

Generative AI has also made its way into science, much to the chagrin of those worried about the quality of what’s being published in scientific journals. And there are non-events here, too.

The GNoME project was claimed an early win for Google DeepMind where AI was used to discover 2.2 million new material structures. Google claimed this result was equivalent to “nearly 800 years’ worth of knowledge”. A few months later, the study was thoroughly examined by human experts and dismissed as hallucinations that were poorly presented but also very similar to known materials.

These AI non-events will keep happening, and it’s important for the public to keep paying attention when they do. While the capabilities of AI models are still improving at breakneck speed and some are leading to genuine breakthroughs, the loudest voices in the AI industry also have a vested interest to keep up the hype.

For the rest of us, we must continuously brush up on AI literacy, to build awareness of what separates hype from reality. Only then can we adopt AI responsibly, with a clear view of both the risks and the benefits.

Daswin De Silva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

As the US and Iran try to come to terms on a peace deal to end their months-long war, US President Donald Trump this week has introduced a new demand – that other countries in the Middle East sign on to his Abraham Accords, normalising relations with Israel.

There are reasons for this. The US and Israel are militarily, strategically and economically weaker than they were on the eve of launching “Operation Epic Fury”, their joint military operation against Iran, in late February.

Their carefully built-up alliances with Persian Gulf countries are now being reevaluated, given these ties didn’t prevent Gulf states from being attacked by Iran. And Iran – despite losing many political and military leaders in months of devastating strikes – seems more powerful than ever.

In this context, both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu desperately need a symbolic victory they can sell to their respective electorates before the US midterm elections and Knesset elections later this year.

This partially explains why Trump is trying to re-invigorate the Abraham Accords, which he has long touted as one of the biggest foreign policy successes of his first term in office.

In a phone call over the weekend with regional partners, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, he insisted their inclusion in any Iran deal depended on all joining the accords. This means establishing diplomatic ties with Israel.

---

Read more: After the Iran war, Persian Gulf nations face tough decisions on the US – a former diplomat explains

---

What are the Abraham Accords?

The Abraham Accords were part of a package of diplomatic initiatives overseen by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, during Trump’s first term. The accords were an attempt to “solve” the long-running Palestinian-Israeli and broader Arab-Israeli conflicts.

Since the first Arab-Israeli War and Israel’s creation in the 1940s, the question of Palestine has plagued the Arab world. It remains the most important political concern of the public in Arab countries today, despite growing disinterest from many Arab leaders.

With the assistance of the US, Israel has, over the decades, slowly chipped away at the collective Arab opposition to its illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territories. This started with its peace agreements with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 and continued with the Abraham Accords.

Before the accords were signed in 2020, the Trump administration moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, closed the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s Washington office and declared that the US no longer viewed Israeli West Bank settlements as illegal.

Then, in 2020, Trump and Netanyahu launched the Peace to Prosperity Plan. While past peace efforts had at least gestured towards Palestinian participation, this one promised economic development at the expense of Palestinian statehood.

The UAE and Bahrain then signed onto the Abraham Accords in September 2020, followed by Morocco in December 2020, Sudan in January 2021 and then Kazakhstan in November 2025.

There were many carrots offered to these countries in exchange for recognising Israel, largely economic, military and diplomatic agreements. For example, the UAE secured advanced weapons and military technology from the US. And Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara was recognised by the US and Israel.

Would any countries join now?

The jewel in the crown, however, has always been Saudi Arabia. This was purportedly a key driver behind the timing of Hamas’ attacks on Israel in October 2023. The group was desperate to derail normalisation talks between the two.

Since Israel’s devastating retaliatory war on Gaza began, Saudi Arabia has been a prominent advocate of Palestinian statehood. It has publicly refused to sign the accords without firm guarantees of Palestinian self-determination.

The remaining regional powers, such as Pakistan, Qatar and Turkey, must take account of their restive populations, who are overwhelmingly supportive of Palestinian self-determination. The US would have to apply significant pressure and offer large carrots for any of them to be persuaded to change course.

Pakistan, in fact, has already rejected Trump’s demands and Saudi Arabia is likely to follow.

So, while it might make sense to link Iran and Palestine together through a regional peace agreement, the Abraham Accords are simply too toxic in their current form for most countries to entertain.

The region is looking for its own solutions

But this won’t stop Trump and Netanyahu from trying to press their case.

If Israel can get other nations on board, Netanyahu can craft a narrative around closer regional ties as he continues Israel’s destruction and occupation of southern Lebanon in its fight against Hezbollah.

This would still be a paltry prize compared to its long-desired aim of removing the Iranian threat altogether. And it may not alleviate the growing pushback he is facing from an increasingly overstretched army.

Closer ties with Arab countries would also not offset the rapid erosion of regional public opinion against Israel. Such negative views are now widely entertained even among Trump’s MAGA base.

The Trump Administration also needs a win. It is reeling from its latest Middle East misadventure:

• its weapons stocks are massively depleted
• the global energy shock is fuelling domestic discontent
• its Gulf allies are questioning the US security umbrella
• and it faces Israeli reluctance to any Iran peace deal.

But in a region undergoing a dramatic strategic reconfiguration, the Abraham Accords are increasingly seen as a US-imposed framework. Some countries are trying to reshape the region in ways that would benefit them instead.

Most notably, Saudi Arabia has reportedly floated a regional non-aggression pact (including Iran) along the lines of Europe’s Helsinki Accords that aimed to ease Cold War tensions in Europe.

Perhaps Trump is trying to re-invigorate the Abraham Accords as a way to counter the Saudi move. Undoubtedly, he is also trying to appease Netanyahu. The silence his demand has received, however, may indicate the region is no longer amenable to US persuasion, no matter how big the carrots are.

Michelle Burgis-Kasthala does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

New South Wales parliament is debating a bill this week that seeks to ban abortions performed on the basis of fetal sex.

If passed, health practitioners who perform such abortions would face professional misconduct charges and lose indemnity insurance coverage for the procedure.

At first glance, this might appear to be a defensible measure to address a practice that sits uneasily with gender equality.

But there’s little evidence sex-selective abortions are occurring in Australia.

The South Australian Law Reform Institute has warned such prohibitions would restrict and delay access to time-sensitive care. They would also prove unworkable and unenforceable.

When and how can you determine fetal sex?

Fetal sex can be determined through non-invasive prenatal testing. This blood test is taken from the pregnant person between ten and 14 weeks’ gestation, and costs around A$500 to $800 out of pocket.

Around 25–30% of pregnant people use this type of testing.

Fetal sex can also be determined through routine ultrasounds performed at around 20 weeks’ gestation.

When can you get an abortion?

Australia progressively decriminalised abortion between 2002 and 2023. It’s now legal in all states and territories.

Decriminalisation shifted decision-making power from doctors to pregnant people, recognising them as the authorities on their own pregnancies. Pregnant people are no longer required to account for their decisions to medical professionals.

However, gestational limits apply in most states and territories (aside from the Australian Capital Territory), ranging from 14 to 24 weeks.

Beyond those limits, medical signoff is still required.

What does the law say about sex-selective abortion?

The law varies by state.

South Australia explicitly prohibits it.

During its decriminalisation debate, NSW passed a statement of parliamentary opposition to the practice.

No other state or territory has specific provisions.

How common is sex-selective abortion?

The evidence base for the bill is thin. The SA Law Reform Institute found “little, if any, evidence that abortions purely on the basis of gender are a real issue in Australia”.

A 2020 NSW review similarly found sex-selective abortions “are rarely performed for the sole purpose of sex selection”.

Proponents cite a recent study as evidence of the practice among people with specific migrant backgrounds.

The study’s own authors, however, describe their findings as “indirect evidence” of a skewed sex ratio at birth. They note only that this “may be indicative of prenatal sex selection” and explicitly state it “does not establish causality”.

It’s actually an anti-abortion strategy

Sex-selection amendments are a well-documented anti-abortion strategy designed to foment stigma and discourage health practitioners from providing abortions.

This bill is one of several currently before state parliaments to limit access to abortions. It’s part of a coordinated effort to erode abortion access and contest the principle that abortion is health care.

Legislation is only part of the strategy. The parliamentary process is also used as a mechanism to advance narratives that frame abortion as morally indefensible. The goal is to undermine not just access, but the legitimacy of abortion itself.

The language of the second reading speech reflects this. The speech contains no reference to fetuses or embryos, only “unborn babies” and “girls”.

There are no “pregnant people” or even “women”, only “mothers”. Doctors who perform abortions are “abortionists.” Advocates are the “pro-abortion lobby”.

This is the lexicon of the anti-abortion movement. It constructs a worldview in which the fetus has independent moral status, the pregnant person exists only as a mother, and abortion is something only the unscrupulous would defend.

The bill’s stated justification rests on one study’s indirect and observational findings about “two migrant communities”, who are portrayed as culturally at odds with Australian values of gender equality.

The bill positions abortion restrictions as a protective, progressive measure, obscuring Australia’s uneven and incomplete record on gender equality.

What could the bill mean for pregnant people and providers?

In practice, the bill reintroduces medical gatekeeping for pregnant people. It will return pregnant people to a regime in which their reasons for terminating a pregnancy are subject to medical and legal scrutiny.

This burden is likely to fall unevenly on racialised communities: in practice, people from some ethnic communities may face greater scrutiny of their decisions from health providers.

It also imposes greater professional and personal risks on abortion providers. Australia already faces a shortage of abortion providers. Exposing health practitioners to professional sanction and voiding their indemnity insurance deters providers.

The international literature is clear: bans on sex-selective abortion do nothing to address the underlying causes of son preference. Those causes are social, economic and cultural.

What sex-selective abortion bans do is restrict reproductive autonomy – itself foundational to gender equality. This bill will not advance gender equality. It will restrict abortion access and expose providers to sanction.

Erica Millar receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition.

Anna Noonan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Four percent of Americans – roughly 12 million people – believe that “lizard people” secretly control the Earth. At least, that was the finding of an infamous 2013 public opinion survey.

Do so many people really believe such outlandish claims? Or do results like these partly reflect people giving silly answers or deliberately skewing surveys for fun?

US psychiatrist Alexander Scott believes the latter plays a significant role.

Using the survey as an example, he coined the term “the Lizardman constant” to describe the idea that a certain amount of noise and trolling will always exist in surveys about unusual beliefs.

As Scott warned: “Any possible source of noise – jokesters, cognitive biases, or deliberate misbehaviour – can easily overwhelm the signal.”

As researchers who study uncommon beliefs such as conspiracy theories, we wanted to investigate how this kind of cheeky trolling can muddy the waters.

Trolls and true believers

Building on earlier Australian research, we surveyed New Zealanders to test how common dishonest or joking responses were in conspiracy theory surveys.

We did this in two ways. First, we directly asked people a yes/no question at the end of the survey:

“Did you respond insincerely at any earlier point in this survey? In other words, did you give any responses that were actually just joking, trolling, or otherwise not indicating what you really think?”

Second, we included in the survey a “conspiracy theory” so ridiculous we could assume most, if not all, people who said they believed it were taking the mickey.

We asked them if they believed:

The Canadian Armed Forces have been secretly developing an elite army of genetically engineered, super intelligent, giant raccoons to invade nearby countries.

In our representative online sample of 810 New Zealanders, 8.3% of respondents confessed to being insincere in the survey.

Another 7.2% said they thought the Canadian raccoon army theory was probably or definitely true. That proportion – similar to findings from Australia – would equate to more than 300,000 adult New Zealanders.

To complicate things slightly, there was some overlap between those admitting to insincere answers and those claiming to believe the raccoon conspiracy. Combined, 13.3% of respondents fell into one or both groups – roughly one in eight people not appearing to take the survey seriously.

Importantly, these respondents were also much more likely to endorse other conspiracy theories, inflating estimates of how widespread those beliefs really are.

For instance, 6.5% of the full sample endorsed the claim that governments around the world are covering up the fact that 5G mobile networks spread coronavirus.

But once we removed the insincere responders, that figure dropped by more than half to 2.7%.

Across 13 different conspiracy theories, the estimated proportion of believers fell substantially once those respondents were excluded.

---

---

Another interesting insight from our study was that people endorsing contradictory conspiracy theories were much more likely to show signs of responding insincerely.

Previous studies have found some people appear to believe conspiracy theories that directly contradict each other. In our survey, for example, some participants agreed both that COVID-19 is a myth and that governments are covering up the fact that 5G networks spread the virus.

But nearly three-quarters of those respondents also showed signs of joking or dishonest answers.

This suggests genuinely believing contradictory conspiracy theories may be less common than previously thought.

Not every conspiracy believer is joking

Our findings add further weight to the idea that surveys may overestimate how many people truly believe some conspiracy theories – thanks, in part, to trolls.

But does that mean all conspiracy theory research is bunk?

Fortunately not. Most research in this area is not focused on counting conspiracy believers, but on understanding why people hold these beliefs and what effects they can have.

We tested several well-established findings from earlier conspiracy theory research to see whether they still held up once insincere respondents were removed from the data.

For example, previous studies have found that people who endorse conspiracy theories are more likely to see the world as a dangerous and threatening place.

We found the same pattern. In fact, removing insincere respondents made little difference to the broader relationships identified in earlier research.

Nevertheless, we recommend that future surveys include ways to gauge whether respondents are answering sincerely and account for this in the analysis. At the very least, researchers should acknowledge that trolls and joking responses can distort their results.

While our research suggests some people are taking the mickey in surveys, it also shows a significant minority genuinely appear to believe some of these claims.

In some cases – such as believing authorities are covering up the fact that the Earth is flat – this may be relatively harmless. But other conspiracy beliefs can lead to real-world harm.

Good-quality research is essential for understanding how sincere believers end up down these rabbit holes, and how those beliefs influence real-world behaviour.

Research into why people embrace conspiracy theories – and the real-world consequences of those beliefs – remains important.

But when surveys suggest millions may believe in lizard overlords or genetically engineered raccoon armies, it is also worth remembering the “Lizardman constant”: some respondents may simply be having us on.

---

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Rob Ross, Mathew Ling and Stephen Hill to this article.

---

John Kerr is supported by a Royal Society Te Apārangi Mana Tūānuku Research Leader Fellowship.

This research was supported by the Marsden Fund Council from Government funding, managed by Royal Society Te Apārangi.

Mathew Marques does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Before Rupert Murdoch, there was Errol Flynn. The Tasmanian born Hollywood actor was arguably our most famous export to the United States until Murdoch moved in to control much of its media.

Between 1934 and his final film in 1959, Flynn was one of the stars of the “golden age” of Hollywood, known for his swashbuckling roles in films such as The Adventures of Robin Hood and Captain Blood.

There is already a considerable literature on Errol Flynn, including his own autobiography, My Wicked, Wicked Ways, but Patricia O’Brien has taken his life as a way of exploring the intertwined assumptions around race and sex that make Flynn a remarkable epitome of his time.

---

Errol Flynn: The true story of Australia’s Hollywood Icon – Patricia O’Brien (Allen & Unwin)

---

Flynn died in 1959, after appearing in 57 films, listed in an appendix. He was subsequently portrayed on film by Guy Pearce, Jude Law and Kevin Kline. His fame lives on in the expression “in like Flynn”, though the phrase was in use long before it became associated with him. There is even an Australian film of that name, about Flynn’s time in New Guinea, which has, deservedly, been largely forgotten.

Times have changed, and most of Flynn’s films now seem at best B-grade, replete with assumptions of white male privilege. In the interest of research, I subjected myself to several of his lesser-known films, Gentleman Jim and The Adventures of Don Juan. Sadly, I remained impervious to his charm.

Whether cast as a boxer in 19th-century San Francisco or a Casanova in 16th-century Spain, he seemed to be playing the same role: smooth, charming and the inevitable winner against impossible odds.

Bodies have changed over the past 80 years; once regarded as a perfect male, Flynn would hardly measure up against the gym-toned buffness of today’s Hollywood actors.

During his career, Flynn was often described as Irish, but he grew up in Hobart, where he attended all the best schools, and was expelled by most. His parents had a tumultuous marriage, and his mother soon moved to Sydney. Flynn followed, to attend Shore Grammar, from which he was also expelled.

Do we need yet another biography?

A wealth of unnecessary vulgarity?

Much of what O’Brien writes repeats the basic story Michael Freedland recounted in The Two Lives of Errol Flynn, though without the overwhelming emphasis on Flynn’s reputation as “a man’s man whose principal hobby was women”. While Freedland revelled in sexual gossip, O’Brien approaches Flynn as emblematic of a larger culture than the Hollywood world.

The year before his death Flynn hired a ghost writer, Earl Conrad, to help produce his own autobiography, My Wicked, Wicked Ways, which had mixed reviews. It is, as one might expect, self-serving but entertaining, in the way bad reality shows are when one is tired, stressed and willing to suspend judgement.

In the conclusion to his autobiography, Flynn claimed: “few others alive in the present century have taken into their maw more of the world than I have”. Contemporary readers might agree with Noel Coward’s judgment: “Such a wealth of unnecessary vulgarity”.

O’Brien approaches Flynn’s life in her capacity as a Pacific historian, based both in Australia and the United States. Her contribution is to situate Flynn within the racist culture of British imperialism, most notably in the discussion of his time as a young man in New Guinea.

After World War I, the former German colony of New Guinea was added to Australia’s control of Papua and remained under Australian rule until Whitlam declared independence for the colony in 1975.

The 18-year-old Flynn was lured to New Guinea by the gold rush of 1927, and remained there for six years, seeking his fortune in mining and tobacco. In ways that are rather unusual for the biography of a movie star, O’Brien dissects the appalling racism of Australian rule, which reinforced the sense of racial superiority Flynn had learnt from his father back in Tasmania.

Theodore Flynn, who was the first professor of biology in Tasmania, had strong views about the superiority of the white race and the undesirability of interracial sex, but his son’s sexual appetite meant he was soon taking advantage of his colonial privilege to bed local women.

From his teenage years, Flynn seems to have regarded any woman he found attractive as fair game. He continued to bed a large number of young women, despite his three unsuccessful marriages.

O’Brien calls him “the greatest heartthrob of his time”, which ignores actors such as Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable, neither of whom are acknowledged in this book.

But his reputation as a great lover was established from his first days in Hollywood, through three marriages, countless affairs and several accusations of rape.

A sexual culture like Epstein

O’Brien devotes a chapter to the major rape trial in Los Angeles in 1943, where the judge appears to have shown extraordinary sympathy to Flynn, who was eventually acquitted. O’Brien is right to point to the ways Flynn represented a sexual culture we associate with Jeffrey Epstein today.

There are echoes of Ernest Hemingway in Flynn’s life; he also spent time as a sporadic war correspondent in Spain during the Civil War, where he sympathised with the Republicans. More interesting was his time in Cuba in 1959, where he spent five days alongside Fidel Castro.

His final film, Cuban Rebel Girls, is a mixture of support for Castro and heterosexual titillation. This provided the basis of a novel by Boyd Anderson (Errol, Fidel and the Cuban Rebel Girls) that even my duties as a reviewer could not persuade me to pursue.

Most of us will share a dislike of the racism and sexism central to Flynn’s life and career – but at times O’Brien’s judgements grate, as when she refers to Nabokov’s Lolita as “a tawdry tale of abuse and ‘perversion’”.

Claims of a liaison with Tyrone Powell – and a rebuff from David Niven – are dismissed by O’Brien as “preposterous”. Without accepting the gossip relayed in Charles Higham’s Errol Flynn: The Untold Story, I would have liked more willingness to explore the persistent rumours of Flynn’s possible bisexual side.

Occasionally, O’Brien lapses into the sort of exaggeration common to movie star biographies, as when she writes: “he was about to conquer the vast land that lay ahead of him in ways no man had done before”. (Maybe she intended irony?)

But Errol Flynn is compulsive reading – even if few of his films deserve re-screening.

Dennis Altman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

In recent days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the Israeli army to seize 70% of Gaza – a sizeable increase from the 60% it currently controls.

This follows an updated map sent to aid agencies in Gaza in late March featuring a new “orange line” demarcating the restricted area under military control – about 11% larger than the area agreed to with the “yellow line” in the October ceasefire with Hamas.

Israel’s defence minister has also confirmed in recent days the government’s intention to move large numbers of Palestinians out of Gaza “at the right time and in the right manner”.

All of this is happening in a charged political environment in Israel: the Knesset dissolved itself on May 20, creating the possibility of an early election in September.

Israel’s actions are in clear violation of the 20-point Gaza peace plan, which called for a staged withdrawal of Israeli troops and actively “encouraged” residents to stay. It reads:

No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has acknowledged as much, telling a congressional hearing this week that the peace plan “doesn’t call for” expanded military control of the strip.

The 2.1 million Palestinians in Gaza are being squeezed into an ever-smaller pocket of the decimated, overcrowded territory. And it appears the international community is doing little to stop it.

Laws against conquering territory

International law permits militaries to occupy foreign territory in pursuit of war aims, but there are two key limitations here.

First, an occupying force cannot pursue a legal claim to the territory it holds. The UN Charter has clearly outlawed the right to conquest under Article 2(4). Breaches of this article are treated very seriously, as the world’s reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shown. This can be considered a war crime – the crime of aggression.

For Israel, this means its control of Gaza cannot result in a claim to sovereignty over any part of the strip. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) underscored this in its 2024 advisory opinion on Israel’s actions in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Second, any occupying military power must comply with international humanitarian law and international human rights law in a conflict. This means ensuring the welfare of the population under its control.

This has been the case in Gaza since Israel captured it from Egypt in the Six-Day War in 1967, beginning a decades-long occupation of the strip.

In fact, Israel’s obligations as an occupying power continued even after it pulled out its troops and dismantled its settlements in 2005.

As part of these obligations, an occupying power must preserve the demographic composition of the territory it controls. In this specific case, international law prohibits the removal of a population (the Palestinians) and the transfer of another population (Israeli settlers) onto occupied land.

A flawed peace plan

Despite these clear legal principles, enforcement of Israel’s obligations will be at best difficult, slow and piecemeal.

In its 2024 advisory opinion, for instance, the ICJ ordered Israel to withdraw fully from the occupied Palestinian territories, saying its presence is in breach of two key legal principles – self-determination and the prohibition against conquest. The UN General Assembly endorsed the findings and set a deadline of September 14 2025 for the withdrawal. Israel ignored the deadline.

The general assembly can’t enforce an ICJ ruling, only the security council can. And this avenue is blocked due to the US veto power.

More worrying is that the clarity provided by international law – prohibiting conquest, genocide, settlements and forced displacement – is being blurred by the 20-point peace plan mediated by US President Donald Trump and the so-called Board of Peace overseeing the process.

Last November, the UN Security Council endorsed Trump’s plan to end the conflict, disarm Hamas and establish a new transitional government system under the auspices of the Board of Peace and an International Stabilisation Force to keep the peace.

But the ceasefire agreement was flawed from the start. The text, for instance, did not include any specifications about Israel’s presence in the strip, accountability for alleged crimes or demilitarisation of Palestinian groups.

Since the ceasefire, the entire process has predictably stalled. Israeli strikes have continued, killing more than 900 Palestinians. Aid delivery is far below the needs of a desperate population. And Hamas refuses to disarm without firm guarantees on future Palestinian self-determination.

Behind the ‘yellow line’

This stalemate suits Israel perfectly. Under the map of the ceasefire agreement, Israel was permitted to keep its troops in areas behind a “yellow line” encircling the majority of the population along the coast. This gave Israel military control of just over half of Gaza.

Then, in the area under its control, Israel began two activities that speak to its longer-term political aspirations.

First, it levelled entire neighbourhoods and hundreds of buildings, turning this part of Gaza into a wasteland devoid of inhabitants and any recognisable landmarks.

Second, on this blank canvas, it constructed an impressive array of military roads, outposts and barriers, including permanent earthen berms (walls).

This gives Israel the possibility of perpetual control of a territory devoid of Palestinians. If this status quo continues, it would amount to forced displacement and conquest.

Day by day, Palestinian Gaza is shrinking and a new Gaza is being forged through bulldozers and barriers. Netanyahu has indicated Israel may not stop at 70% depopulation and control. It may seek to preserve a large “buffer” zone in Gaza – as it is doing in Lebanon and Syria – or perhaps revive the project of Israeli settlement of the strip, which is in full swing across the West Bank.

All of this is happening in violation of international law and a “peace” plan that has no clear vision for a long-term solution for the Palestinian people.

Michelle Burgis-Kasthala does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

You’re trying to be a supportive, empathetic friend. You listen as they outline significant challenges in their life. Maybe they’re feeling low or stressed, or there’s tension at home or in relationships.

You’ve heard it’s best not to jump in with solutions, or try to “fix” anything, and instead just listen without judging them.

But sometimes, the same conversation repeats, the weight doesn’t lift, and the lines between support and responsibility begin to blur.

So when does being a good friend mean gently suggesting more structured help – such as therapy with a psychologist or a mental health professional?

How do you know it’s time?

Listening to your friend talking about their problems, without judging them, creates a sense of psychological safety. It helps them feel they can speak honestly without being evaluated, corrected or dismissed.

Being heard in this way by a friend can itself be deeply validating. This can help someone feel more comfortable to seek professional help.

However, there may be a time where listening is not enough, and over time, your concern begins to grow.

You might notice your friend’s situation is worsening, or their wellbeing – or that of those around them – is being affected. They may be relying on unhealthy coping strategies, such as increased alcohol use, struggling with sleep, or facing serious consequences such as losing their job.

Or you might notice the intensity or the frequency of the problem and/or its impact increasing. If the emotional weight of conversations becomes heavier, more frequent, or more urgent, it may signal deeper distress so may warrant more specialised, professional intervention.

Then there’s the impact of these conversations on you. If you feel overwhelmed, drained, start to avoid your friend, or dread these conversations, it may be time to encourage them to seek professional help.

This is also the case if you’re feeling out of your depth and at a loss about how best to respond to your friend.

What do I say?

One way is to think in three stages. These provide a structure that keeps the conversation supportive while gradually opening the door to something more.

1. Validate

Show you’ve truly heard and understood your friend. You might say, “That sounds really exhausting. I can see why you’re feeling overwhelmed”, or “You’ve been dealing with a lot lately. It makes sense this is affecting you”.

2. Show concern

Then you can gently share your concern. This involves shifting from simply listening to naming what you’ve been noticing, without criticism or judgement. You might say, “I’ve been thinking about what you’ve been going through, and I’m a bit worried about how much it’s been affecting you”, or “I’ve noticed this has been coming up a lot and seems really heavy for you”.

Framing your words around your own observations (such as using phrases like “I’ve noticed” or “I feel”) helps keep the conversation open and avoids making your friend feel judged.

3. Therapy as support

The next step is to introduce therapy as a form of support, rather than something you are imposing. It’s important to position it as an additional layer of help, not a replacement for your friendship.

You might say, “Have you ever thought about talking to someone professionally about this?” or “I wonder if having someone trained to support you through this might help in a different way”. You could also acknowledge your limits by saying, “You deserve more support than just what I can give, and someone who’s really equipped to help with this”. Using tentative language such as “might”, “wonder” or “have you thought about” helps keep the tone collaborative and non-forceful.

It can also help to normalise therapy and reduce any sense of stigma around it. People are often more open to the idea when it feels ordinary rather than extreme.

You might frame it in terms such as, “A lot of people find it helpful to have a space like that”, or “It’s not about something being wrong with you, it’s just having support to work things through”. This helps shift therapy from something daunting to something accessible.

Sometimes your friend may be willing to seek more support but might be overwhelmed or uncertain about where to start. Gentle offers such as, “If you ever wanted to look into it, I could help you find someone,” or “I’d be happy to sit with you while you book something, if that makes it easier” can lower that barrier while still respecting their autonomy.

What if it backfires?

If your friend is hesitant or resistant, don’t push too hard. Instead, keep the door open while maintaining the relationship. You might respond with, “That’s completely OK. I just thought I’d mention it because I care”. This reassures them your support isn’t conditional on their response.

Finally, there may be times when you need to acknowledge your own limits. Being honest about this can actually strengthen the conversation, as long as it’s done with care.

You might say, “I really want to keep supporting you, but I’m also feeling a bit out of my depth with this”, or “I care about you a lot, and I think this might be something bigger than I can help with on my own.” In this way, setting a boundary becomes another form of care for your friend and for you.

Glen Hosking does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

As the US and Iran try to come to terms on a peace deal to end their months-long war, US President Donald Trump this week has introduced a new demand – that other countries in the Middle East sign on to his Abraham Accords, normalising relations with Israel.

There are reasons for this. The US and Israel are militarily, strategically and economically weaker than they were on the eve of launching “Operation Epic Fury”, their joint military operation against Iran, in late February.

Their carefully built-up alliances with Persian Gulf countries are now being reevaluated, given these ties didn’t prevent Gulf states from being attacked by Iran. And Iran – despite losing many political and military leaders in months of devastating strikes – seems more powerful than ever.

In this context, both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu desperately need a symbolic victory they can sell to their respective electorates before the US midterm elections and Knesset elections later this year.

This partially explains why Trump is trying to re-invigorate the Abraham Accords, which he has long touted as one of the biggest foreign policy successes of his first term in office.

In a phone call over the weekend with regional partners, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, he insisted their inclusion in any Iran deal depended on all joining the accords. This means establishing diplomatic ties with Israel.

---

Read more: After the Iran war, Persian Gulf nations face tough decisions on the US – a former diplomat explains

---

What are the Abraham Accords?

The Abraham Accords were part of a package of diplomatic initiatives overseen by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, during Trump’s first term. The accords were an attempt to “solve” the long-running Palestinian-Israeli and broader Arab-Israeli conflicts.

Since the first Arab-Israeli War and Israel’s creation in the 1940s, the question of Palestine has plagued the Arab world. It remains the most important political concern of the public in Arab countries today, despite growing disinterest from many Arab leaders.

With the assistance of the US, Israel has, over the decades, slowly chipped away at the collective Arab opposition to its illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territories. This started with its peace agreements with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 and continued with the Abraham Accords.

Before the accords were signed in 2020, the Trump administration moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, closed the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s Washington office and declared that the US no longer viewed Israeli West Bank settlements as illegal.

Then, in 2020, Trump and Netanyahu launched the Peace to Prosperity Plan. While past peace efforts had at least gestured towards Palestinian participation, this one promised economic development at the expense of Palestinian statehood.

The UAE and Bahrain then signed onto the Abraham Accords in September 2020, followed by Morocco in December 2020, Sudan in January 2021 and then Kazakhstan in November 2025.

There were many carrots offered to these countries in exchange for recognising Israel, largely economic, military and diplomatic agreements. For example, the UAE secured advanced weapons and military technology from the US. And Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara was recognised by the US and Israel.

Would any countries join now?

The jewel in the crown, however, has always been Saudi Arabia. This was purportedly a key driver behind the timing of Hamas’ attacks on Israel in October 2023. The group was desperate to derail normalisation talks between the two.

Since Israel’s devastating retaliatory war on Gaza began, Saudi Arabia has been a prominent advocate of Palestinian statehood. It has publicly refused to sign the accords without firm guarantees of Palestinian self-determination.

The remaining regional powers, such as Pakistan, Qatar and Turkey, must take account of their restive populations, who are overwhelmingly supportive of Palestinian self-determination. The US would have to apply significant pressure and offer large carrots for any of them to be persuaded to change course.

Pakistan, in fact, has already rejected Trump’s demands and Saudi Arabia is likely to follow.

So, while it might make sense to link Iran and Palestine together through a regional peace agreement, the Abraham Accords are simply too toxic in their current form for most countries to entertain.

The region is looking for its own solutions

But this won’t stop Trump and Netanyahu from trying to press their case.

If Israel can get other nations on board, Netanyahu can craft a narrative around closer regional ties as he continues Israel’s destruction and occupation of southern Lebanon in its fight against Hezbollah.

This would still be a paltry prize compared to its long-desired aim of removing the Iranian threat altogether. And it may not alleviate the growing pushback he is facing from an increasingly overstretched army.

Closer ties with Arab countries would also not offset the rapid erosion of regional public opinion against Israel. Such negative views are now widely entertained even among Trump’s MAGA base.

The Trump Administration also needs a win. It is reeling from its latest Middle East misadventure:

• its weapons stocks are massively depleted
• the global energy shock is fuelling domestic discontent
• its Gulf allies are questioning the US security umbrella
• and it faces Israeli reluctance to any Iran peace deal.

But in a region undergoing a dramatic strategic reconfiguration, the Abraham Accords are increasingly seen as a US-imposed framework. Some countries are trying to reshape the region in ways that would benefit them instead.

Most notably, Saudi Arabia has reportedly floated a regional non-aggression pact (including Iran) along the lines of Europe’s Helsinki Accords that aimed to ease Cold War tensions in Europe.

Perhaps Trump is trying to re-invigorate the Abraham Accords as a way to counter the Saudi move. Undoubtedly, he is also trying to appease Netanyahu. The silence his demand has received, however, may indicate the region is no longer amenable to US persuasion, no matter how big the carrots are.

Michelle Burgis-Kasthala does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

In recent days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the Israeli army to seize 70% of Gaza – a sizeable increase from the 60% it currently controls.

This follows an updated map sent to aid agencies in Gaza in late March featuring a new “orange line” demarcating the restricted area under military control – about 11% larger than the area agreed to with the “yellow line” in the October ceasefire with Hamas.

Israel’s defence minister has also confirmed in recent days the government’s intention to move large numbers of Palestinians out of Gaza “at the right time and in the right manner”.

All of this is happening in a charged political environment in Israel: the Knesset dissolved itself on May 20, creating the possibility of an early election in September.

Israel’s actions are in clear violation of the 20-point Gaza peace plan, which called for a staged withdrawal of Israeli troops and actively “encouraged” residents to stay. It reads:

No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has acknowledged as much, telling a congressional hearing this week that the peace plan “doesn’t call for” expanded military control of the strip.

The 2.1 million Palestinians in Gaza are being squeezed into an ever-smaller pocket of the decimated, overcrowded territory. And it appears the international community is doing little to stop it.

Laws against conquering territory

International law permits militaries to occupy foreign territory in pursuit of war aims, but there are two key limitations here.

First, an occupying force cannot pursue a legal claim to the territory it holds. The UN Charter has clearly outlawed the right to conquest under Article 2(4). Breaches of this article are treated very seriously, as the world’s reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shown. This can be considered a war crime – the crime of aggression.

For Israel, this means its control of Gaza cannot result in a claim to sovereignty over any part of the strip. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) underscored this in its 2024 advisory opinion on Israel’s actions in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Second, any occupying military power must comply with international humanitarian law and international human rights law in a conflict. This means ensuring the welfare of the population under its control.

This has been the case in Gaza since Israel captured it from Egypt in the Six-Day War in 1967, beginning a decades-long occupation of the strip.

In fact, Israel’s obligations as an occupying power continued even after it pulled out its troops and dismantled its settlements in 2005.

As part of these obligations, an occupying power must preserve the demographic composition of the territory it controls. In this specific case, international law prohibits the removal of a population (the Palestinians) and the transfer of another population (Israeli settlers) onto occupied land.

A flawed peace plan

Despite these clear legal principles, enforcement of Israel’s obligations will be at best difficult, slow and piecemeal.

In its 2024 advisory opinion, for instance, the ICJ ordered Israel to withdraw fully from the occupied Palestinian territories, saying its presence is in breach of two key legal principles – self-determination and the prohibition against conquest. The UN General Assembly endorsed the findings and set a deadline of September 14 2025 for the withdrawal. Israel ignored the deadline.

The general assembly can’t enforce an ICJ ruling, only the security council can. And this avenue is blocked due to the US veto power.

More worrying is that the clarity provided by international law – prohibiting conquest, genocide, settlements and forced displacement – is being blurred by the 20-point peace plan mediated by US President Donald Trump and the so-called Board of Peace overseeing the process.

Last November, the UN Security Council endorsed Trump’s plan to end the conflict, disarm Hamas and establish a new transitional government system under the auspices of the Board of Peace and an International Stabilisation Force to keep the peace.

But the ceasefire agreement was flawed from the start. The text, for instance, did not include any specifications about Israel’s presence in the strip, accountability for alleged crimes or demilitarisation of Palestinian groups.

Since the ceasefire, the entire process has predictably stalled. Israeli strikes have continued, killing more than 900 Palestinians. Aid delivery is far below the needs of a desperate population. And Hamas refuses to disarm without firm guarantees on future Palestinian self-determination.

Behind the ‘yellow line’

This stalemate suits Israel perfectly. Under the map of the ceasefire agreement, Israel was permitted to keep its troops in areas behind a “yellow line” encircling the majority of the population along the coast. This gave Israel military control of just over half of Gaza.

Then, in the area under its control, Israel began two activities that speak to its longer-term political aspirations.

First, it levelled entire neighbourhoods and hundreds of buildings, turning this part of Gaza into a wasteland devoid of inhabitants and any recognisable landmarks.

Second, on this blank canvas, it constructed an impressive array of military roads, outposts and barriers, including permanent earthen berms (walls).

This gives Israel the possibility of perpetual control of a territory devoid of Palestinians. If this status quo continues, it would amount to forced displacement and conquest.

Day by day, Palestinian Gaza is shrinking and a new Gaza is being forged through bulldozers and barriers. Netanyahu has indicated Israel may not stop at 70% depopulation and control. It may seek to preserve a large “buffer” zone in Gaza – as it is doing in Lebanon and Syria – or perhaps revive the project of Israeli settlement of the strip, which is in full swing across the West Bank.

All of this is happening in violation of international law and a “peace” plan that has no clear vision for a long-term solution for the Palestinian people.

Michelle Burgis-Kasthala does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.