Tyler Lewis in the Oz reports Voll continued her international ascension, dragging Australia over the line against India in the second Twenty20 in Canberra with a hard-fought half-century.

Her career-best 88 from 57 balls led a record opening stand with Beth Mooney and laid the foundation for the Aussies' 19-run win.

The right-hander battled early after the hosts lost the toss and were sent in, hitting just six runs from her first eight balls and 22 off 17.

But a lofted drive over mid-on was the elixir in Voll’s quest for rhythm as she swiftly moved to 51 from 31 balls.

It was Voll’s third fifty in the Twenty20 format but first on home soil.

Voll and Mooney took Australia unblemished to 128 before the veteran left-hander was dismissed for 46.

The 22-year-old, who has been long earmarked as Alyssa Healy’s successor across all formats, batted on while teammates struggled around her.

Voll eventually perished in the deep attempting to accelerate the innings and with her went Australia’s momentum.

The Aussies scored just five runs from the final over and had two run outs off the last two balls of the innings to post 5-163.

India made the start Australia couldn't afford, racing to 0-54 off the six powerplay overs.

But the door soon opened for the Aussies when the fielding restrictions eased and Sophie Molineux, Ash Gardner and Kim Garth all collected quick wickets.
↑

Private equity companies slid after Blue Owl Capital’s decision to sell $1.4 billion in assets and freeze redemptions at one of its funds to manage debt and return capital.

Apollo Global Management, Ares, KKR & Co and Carlyle Group fell sharply, while Blue Owl was down 9%.

Shares of Walmart were also down marginally after new CEO, John Furner, kicked off his tenure with a conservative fiscal 2027 forecast as well as a $30 billion buyback plan.

However, more than 12% gains in Deere & Co after the farm-machinery maker raised its annual profit forecast and beat first-quarter results estimates, helped curb losses.

Megacap and growth stocks were mixed, though chip stocks were under pressure with the Philadelphia SE Semiconductor Index down 0.7%.

Broader AI-linked and megacap technology stocks are facing turbulence amid concerns over high valuations and limited evidence that significant investments in AI are driving revenue and profit growth.

Sectors ranging from software to trucking have also been hit by concerns that rapidly improving AI tools could disrupt their business models.

All of a sudden (markets) discovered that AI is going to have a big impact on the way businesses are being done ! it’s just an over-reaction, said Max Wasserman, founder and senior portfolio manager at Miramar Capital.

At 11:41 a.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 236.36 points, or 0.48%, to 49,426.30, the S&P 500 lost 19.45 points, or 0.28%, to 6,861.86 and the Nasdaq Composite lost 41.72 points, or 0.18%, to 22,711.92.

In earnings-related moves, ad giant Omnicom jumped 13.1% after the company beat analysts' estimates for fourth-quarter revenue, while Carvana dropped 8.2% after the online used-car retailer missed fourth-quarter profit estimates.

Software provider EPAM Systems plunged 21.5% as its cautious first-quarter outlook disappointed investors.

The S&P 500 energy index was up 0.9% as crude oil prices rose on mounting fears of a military conflict between the United States and Iran.

Meanwhile, minutes from the U.S. Federal Reserve’s most recent policy meeting released on Wednesday showed policymakers remained split about the policy path later this year.

Traders are currently pricing in the Fed to make its next move in June, with a roughly 60% chance for a rate cut of at least 25 basis points, according to CME’s FedWatch Tool.

At least four central bank officials are scheduled to speak during the day.

Investors are assessing Thursday’s weekly jobless claims data that pointed to a stabilizing labor market, and will closely parse the Personal Consumption Expenditure report — the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge — which is due on Friday, for hints on the Fed’s rate outlook.

Declining issues outnumbered advancers by a 1.55-to-1 ratio on the NYSE, and by a 1.44-to-1 ratio on the Nasdaq.

The S&P 500 posted 23 new 52-week highs and six new lows, while the Nasdaq Composite recorded 42 new highs and 101 new lows.

In a dramatic demonstration of One Nation support on the eve of an election, an exclusive Newspoll conducted for The Australian shows Pauline Hanson’s party has rocketed to a 24% primary vote as the Liberal vote collapses to just 14%.

After multiple recent polls showing One Nation equalling or passing the Liberals, this latest Newspoll just four weeks from the March 21 state election is the first where Senator Hanson’s party has taken such a commanding lead.

If replicated statewide the Liberal Party could fail to hold any of its 13 seats — a prospect made more likely by the fact many of its few seats are in rural and regional areas where the One Nation vote is expected to be higher and where sitting Liberal MPs are also being challenged by independents.

The key question will be whether One Nation can sustain its support in coming weeks or see it pared back as happened to former senator Nick Xenophon who went from being preferred premier to failing to win a seat at the 2018 South Australian poll as voters focused more keenly on his lack of policy.

The 14% Liberal vote represents a dismal four-year deterioration for the party which is on its fourth leader this term since Steven Marshall lost office in 2022 after just one term in power.

David Speirs quit amid a cocaine scandal in 2023 over which he pleaded guilty to drug-supply charges and his successor Vincent Tarzia resigned in December last year amid shocking internal polling, leaving 32-year-old first-term MP Ashton Hurn with just 15 weeks to ready the party and promote herself ahead of the election.

During this term the Liberals also lost two historic by-elections in which former leaders' seats were snared by the ALP. The opposition has also been plagued by infighting between its moderate-dominated parliamentary party and the surge of conservative party members loyal to senator Alex Antic and Mt Gambier-based federal MP Tony Pasin.

The latest Newspoll shows the Liberal primary vote has fallen by more than 20 points this term from 35.7% at the 2022 poll to 14%. In contrast Labor’s primary vote has risen from 40% in 2022 to 44% in the latest Newspoll, reflecting the shift from former Liberal voters towards the more centrist and pro-business government of Premier Peter Malinauskas.

Mr Malinauskas enjoys a dominant approval rating with 67% satisfied and 27% dissatisfied with his performance.
↑

King Charles has offered his wholehearted support to UK authorities who arrested his brother Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on suspicion of misconduct in public office, declaring the law must take its course".

The King’s comments came as the family of the late Australian-based Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre welcomed news of the former royal’s arrest and urged a full investigation into his alleged crimes.

I think the first step here has been taken by the UK which is amazing, Giuffre’s brother Sky Roberts said in an emotional interview.

I think there’s so much more that needs to be done here. I'm hoping they conduct a full investigation and there’s a conviction of some sort.

The arrest comes amid mounting allegations published in the latest tranche of Jeffrey Epstein files, relating to Mountbatten-Windsor’s business dealings while he served as the UK’s trade envoy.

The former royal is under fire over allegations he forwarded confidential trade documents to late pedophile Epstein.

The arrest is a stunning blow to the monarchy and King Charles insisted the family would co-operate with the investigation.

What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities, he said in a written statement.

In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation.

Let me state clearly: the law must take its course. As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter. Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.

Police vehicles were seen at Wood Farm on the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk on Thursday morning, and searches have also been carried out at his properties in Berkshire and Norfolk.

Mountbatten Windsor, who has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, remains in custody after his arrest.
↑

Aussies have been left in disbelief after a farmer revealed how much he earns in a year, with multiple people questioning why the figure wasn't higher.

The young man was stopped on the streets of Queensland’s Gold Coast by jobs app Getahead and asked what he does for a living and how much he earns.

He said he was a farmer and explained he pay varies from year to year.

But in a good year I suppose $50,000, $60,000, he estimated.

Asked what he loves most about working on a farm, he said without pause: Being the backbone of this nation.

People need the ingredients we grow and we supply that, and that is what makes me passionate about what I do, he added.

The video sparked a strong response, with many rushing to the comments to praise the man for the work he does.

Many commenters were also shocked at his salary and believed he should be earning a lot more.

That’s terrible $ for such hard work, one said, with another agreeing, saying, He deserves more.

When you realise you can earn more stacking shelves than growing food and take none of the risk, another wrote.

One added: It’s a shame our farmers get such a little of money for supporting the community.

However, there were those who questioned why the figure was so low, claiming people working in the farming industry can make significantly more money.

Farmers make a lot more than this, one person said.

I've worked in multiple sectors of the Ag industry across Australia ∼ I know what I'm talking about ∼ this bloke makes 50k in a good year?! What the f is he farming? Guinea pigs? another asked.

It’s unknown what, according to SEEK, the average annual salary for a farmer in Australia ranges from $75,000 to $85,000 a year.

However, income can vary heavily depending on location and experience, with the job search site stating the average salary for a farmer in the Mackay and Coalfields region can be up to $130,000 a year.

Asked during the interview how being a farmer affects his health and wellbeing, the man said the long, hard days have a big impact.

Isolation is another massive thing. When you are a farmer, you don't necessarily see people for a long period of time, he said.

But, in saying that, when you do, it is always a great big celebration and you have a good time.

He also explained that, because you are working in such a remote area, it can sometimes be difficult to access certain resources, like a doctor.

Because you don't necessarily have those resources close, if you do have something small, you will sort of be more likely to go 'Oh I'll do that next month', he said.

I want to stay at home with my roses.

They're the flowers Jean Mathew’s husband surprised her with before he died more than 25 years ago, and they've spread throughout her garden ever since. Her home is full of memories, but the roaming cream rose bush is part of why she wants to stay.

The 78-year-old lives alone near Adelaide and is highly independent, attending church once a week and doing her own washing and cooking. She has cerebral palsy and uses a powered wheelchair, receiving assistance from a support worker for personal care.

But, despite her capabilities, she is considering an aged care home for the first time.

The turning point came after she was recently assessed for home support by the federal government’s integrated assessment tool (IAT), an algorithm-based computer model that determines how much assistance older Australians receive.

Peter Schulz, a friend of Mathew’s from church, said everyone involved assumed Jean’s funding would be increased".

She currently has to wait all day to go to the toilet, only receiving a support worker for one hour in the morning and one in the evening, he said.

Instead, the algorithm classified her as needing less funding than she currently has, assigning her to category 7.

This amounts to $58,000 a year.

Mathew used to receive $163,000 a year under the Disability Support for Older Australians scheme, which helped cover things like a support worker, equipment and other assistance. This was terminated when she moved on to an aged care package, which had provided her with $63,000.

Schulz said even Mathew’s clinical assessors were frustrated with this outrageous computer algorithm", which they had no ability to override.

Mathew’s case is similar to many examples revealed to Guardian Australia of older Australians being assigned lower levels of support under the IAT than clinicians and carers say is safe or appropriate.

The Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne said she has received messages from constituents and aged care providers who are telling me that older people are being denied critical care because of an opaque system that is systematically under-assessing their needs".

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing did not respond to questions about how the IAT calculates support, but a department spokesperson said clinician expertise is still important when inputting the data.

Guardian Australia understands the tool was tested on more than 200,000 completed assessments but these evaluations have not been made public.
↑

While good leaders don't shy away from a fight, the greater the difference between voters' views and a political party’s perception of the national interest, the harder the challenge of leadership and the greater the likelihood of political failure.

The argument used against the Liberal Party, most notably by its former leader Malcolm Turnbull, is that by moving to the right the party is leaving the electorate behind and dooming itself to fail.

There is some evidence that the electorate has moved marginally left, especially on issues where the Liberals have failed to make a contest like climate; but on many hot-button issues it has actually become more conservative.

In two papers published early last year, The Australian Population Research Institute argued that large electoral majorities did not favour the political class’s orthodoxy that high immigration and cultural diversity were unambiguously good for Australia.

While there are dangers here with clumsy language, sensitively and intelligently handled, big change here is exactly what the electorate is looking for. Perhaps it’s new Liberal leader Angus Taylor’s focus on the cultural issue of protecting the Australian way of life, as well as the economic one of restoring Australians' standard of living, that explains the early positive reaction to his elevation.

The TAPRI study, published last February, showed 80% support for reducing migration numbers, 67% support for dealing with skills shortages by raising wages and improving skills training for locals, 67% opposition to increasing ethnic and other forms of diversity, and 58% support for selection policy that takes into account a migrant’s ability to fit into the Australian community.

A further study published in March 2025 found that while 66% of all voters wanted a sharp reduction in the migrant intake, especially of temporary migrants, this was also the view of 58% of Labor and Greens voters. These figures are almost certain to have increased in the wake of the Bondi massacre.

It’s worth noting that while people born overseas are just over 30% of the population, they're only 20% of voters.

Even so, the TAPRI study shows that 77% of Asian-born migrants want lower immigration while English-speaking and European migrants are even likelier than the Australian-born to want lower migration and likelier to want fitting into Australia to be part of migrant selection policy.

And while Asian migrants are more pro-diversity than other Australians, even among them there’s still 50% opposition to using migration to increase diversity.

The most reliable and comprehensive guide to voters' attitudes over time is the Australian National University’s Australian Election Study, which has been asking much the same questions of a representative sample of voters since 1987. On migration issues, the AES reinforces TAPRI’s findings.

The most recent AES report, released in November, showed that 53% of 2025 voters wanted immigration reduced, with only 14% wanting it increased; whereas at the 2022 election the percentage wanting it increased was actually slightly higher than that wanting it reduced. Between 2022 and 2025, the percentage thinking migrants were good for the economy dropped by 10 points and the percentage thinking migrants increased crime rose by 10 points. In 2025, at 50%, voter support for turning back asylum-seeker boats was actually stronger than in 2013.

On other issues, too, the electorate is becoming more conservative. Between 2022 and 2025, the percentage wanting less tax rose from 39 to 42 while the percentage wanting more social spending fell from 31 to 30. As well, the percentage thinking that climate change was a serious threat dropped from 66 to 57, while those thinking it was not increased from 34 to 43.

Based on the totality of voters' responses, the AES judges that voters at the 2025 election leaned slightly to the left with an averaged score of 4.93 out of 10 (where 10 is right and 0 is left). Yet at the previous 2022 election, despite the electorate leaning ever so slightly to the right with a score of 5.05, Anthony Albanese still had a strong win. What’s more, the Coalition still won elections (just) in 2016 and 2019 with an electorate that leaned slightly left. Interestingly, the study shows that voters thought the Coalition was no more right-wing under Peter Dutton in 2025 than it had been under Scott Morrison in 2022; indeed, the Coalition was perceived by voters to have been just as right-wing under Turnbull in 2016 as in the two most recent elections.

When the 2025 Election Study results were released last November, the media focused on the finding that, for the first time, voters felt that Labor (on 32%) was better placed to manage the economy than the Coalition (with just 28%). Yet management of the economy was cited by only 12% of voters as the most important election issue, down from 28% in 2013.

In fact, by far the most significant result was that only 34% of voters in the 2025 study said they always voted for the same party, compared with 63% in 1987. But even this volatility is not especially recent, with more than 50% of voters rusted on at only one of the past seven federal elections. The study reveals about 20% of Coalition voters and about 30% of Labor voters have considered changing their votes during the campaign in every election since 1987.

What this tells me is that election results have more to do with how people view leaders and leadership; it’s leadership after all that most shapes most people’s views on most issues. For the Liberals, in other words, the problem is less that voters have moved away from them but that they have not provided much leadership on the issues voters care about.

Quite apart from the fact that the Liberals in 2025 inexplicably failed to campaign for their energy policy or against Labor’s unrealised capital gains tax policy, plus failed to hammer the fact that government policy had exacerbated the worst fall in living standards in the developed world, the key factors in their humiliation were the collapse of TV in shaping people’s political perceptions, the rise of social media (in which the Coalition was largely MIA) and antipathy towards Dutton who, however unfairly, the study showed had the least voter appeal in its history.

Far from needing to persuade the Australian public that migration numbers are too high and that all migrants must accept Australian values, what this says to me is that on immigration, Taylor is pushing on an open door. Based on the best available data, promising to protect the Australian way of life is exactly what voters want — as well as what our country needs, as the Bondi massacre has put up in flashing neon lights.

Meaning that far from being too right-wing for the electorate, for the first time in years the Liberals are actually taking voters where they want to go.

Like many of our current pathologies, its roots lie in the heady days of the 1960s. And if the crisis has proved so hard to contain, it is because the ideas and attitudes forged in that period have continued to command allegiance long after the conditions that gave them plausibility fell away — turning inherited reflexes into instruments of chaos and disorder.

At the heart of the changes that shook Australia towards the close of the Menzies era was the emergence of protest movements incubated within rapidly expanding universities. Although multiple influences were at work, developments overseas were especially important.

That influence was reinforced through several channels. For the first time, youth travel occurred on a mass scale: in the 1960s, cheaper fares and rising incomes lifted overseas departure rates among those aged 20-24 more than six-fold.

Meanwhile, television became a primary source of nightly news, transforming political events ∼ including those overseas ∼ into vivid, broadly shared spectacles. Complementing both developments was the diffusion of a distinct youth culture that celebrated oppositional attitudes.

It is consequently unsurprising that the earliest stirrings echoed the US civil rights movement: the Freedom Rides of early 1965 captured the nascent mood.

But it was, of course, the Vietnam War that transformed scattered nuclei of activism into a national phenomenon.

As in the US, the campaign against the war entrenched a new radicalism within Australian universities, marked by revolutionary rhetoric sharply at odds with the tone and posture of the peace movement of the 1950s.

Dominated by communist fronts, that earlier movement had concentrated on attracting fellow travellers from the unions, the ALP and the churches.

It was therefore shaped by a persistent quest for respectability that ∼ although continually undermined by slavish adherence to the Soviet line ∼ left a clear imprint on its leadership style. Consistent with that orientation, its rhetoric during the Vietnam era focused on securing the withdrawal of Australian troops and a negotiated settlement to the war.

By contrast, beginning with the Sydney University ALP Club in 1966, student activists cast the Vietcong as model revolutionaries and replaced the traditional peace movement’s imagery ∼ designed to elicit sympathy through photographs of napalmed children and burning villages ∼ with stylised portrayals of heroic guerillas. Rejecting calls for negotiation as talk into thin air, they embraced a Manichean worldview in which Australians confronted a stark choice between remaining an outpost of imperialism and supporting the forces of progress — that is, between their own soldiers and those they were fighting.

Nor were these radicals especially committed to nonviolence at home. On the contrary, Maoist factions treated violence as revolutionary, particularly when directed at the police and even more so at rival radical groups — producing brawls that culminated in 1978, when Maoists hurled an alleged Trotskyite through a plate-glass window.

Yet these groups remained numerically insignificant. In the tussles for control of the 1970 Moratorium, they were readily outplayed by the traditional peace organisations' battle-hardened Communist cadres, whose overriding objective was to garner support within the labour movement and across the electorate.

At a time when the ALP Right remained a formidable force ∼ particularly in the pivotal states of NSW and Victoria ∼ and when institutions, including the police, still commanded broad respect on the left, assembling wide-ranging support required that demonstrations remain orderly.

The prominence of the give peace a chance motif reinforced the insistence on nonviolence. The result was that the extremists were marginalised and restrained ∼ physically so in Brisbane ∼ allowing the massive nationwide demonstrations of May 8, 1970 to proceed almost entirely peacefully. That was less true of the subsequent Vietnam protests and of the highly confrontational attempts to impede the Springboks' tour in 1971. Yet despite those blemishes, the May 1970 marches conferred on mass demonstrations an enduring legitimacy they had never previously possessed.

A momentous consequence of that legitimacy ∼ and of the subsequent rise to power of the baby boomers, whose worldview had been shaped by the Moratorium ∼ was a far-reaching transformation of the legal framework.

Until then, regulations governing street protests had been squarely directed at maintaining public order: statutory offences legislation and municipal by-laws treated permission to occupy public spaces for rallies and marches as a privilege, granted subject to clear duties and constraints.

The report of the South Australian Royal Commission chaired by Justice Charles Hart Bright and the Public Assemblies Act 1972 (SA) that followed, marked the advent of a different era, in which the authorities had to stringently justify any restrictions.

Entrenching that shift was the High Court’s controversial decision in Brown v Tasmania (2017), which ∼ drawing a very long bow from the already contentious implied freedom of political communication ∼ appeared to elevate even highly disruptive protest into a constitutional entitlement.

However, as the Age of Aquarius gave way to the Age of Rage, the conditions that had once kept mass demonstrations peaceful ebbed away.

Respect for Australian institutions, including the police, curdled into hostility towards a settler colonial state; in an era of political fragmentation and rival echo chambers, the search for a broad base yielded to the imperative of seizing attention; the collapse of the ALP Right and the capture of taxpayer-funded institutions by the far left relaxed the normative and organisational constraints on extremism; and as an apocalyptic mindset ∼ typified by the green left ∼ eclipsed the hopeful, often utopian, spirit of the Vietnam years, violence came to seem not merely permissible but necessary, given the perceived enormity and urgency of the stakes.

As a result, the unrestrained aggressiveness of social media spilled from the screen into the street, its rhetorical assaults readily hardening, once enacted in the public square, into the real thing.

Already evident in Extinction Rebellion’s massively disruptive protests, those currents have, in the recent demonstrations, metastasised.

Supercharging their force ∼ and the threat they pose ∼ is the alliance between the far left and radical Muslims whose virulent antisemitism, contempt for liberal democracy and repudiation of Australian institutions imports a jihadist logic that prizes confrontation over coexistence.

Caught between that reality, a commitment to an ill-defined, entirely ahistorical right to protest and the High Court’s ever-changing jurisprudence, governments have struggled to respond.

Although circumstances are nowhere near as dire, historian Detlev Peukert’s judgment of the Weimar Republic’s failure to master street violence rings shockingly true: The republic oscillated between impotence and over-reaction: either constitutional scruples paralysed it, or emergency powers hollowed out its legitimacy.

That is precisely where we now stand — for here too, as with the shibboleths of multiculturalism and of Indigenous self-determination, we remain in thrall to the spent inheritance of a vanished age.

In the end, every liberal democracy, if it is to endure, must give its enemies enough rope to hang themselves — but not enough to hang others. Striking that balance demands a cold, hard view of the world as it is. We have adamantly refused to take it. Unless we open our eyes, it is only a matter of time before we are swinging in the wind.