Laura Jayes

@ljayes Matt Cunningham is a class act and you can clearly see his love and frustrations with the NT. No other journo reporting on the NT like him. @SkyNewsAust

TRAGIC CASE HIGHLIGHTS A NATIONAL DISGRACE The death of five-year-old Sharon Granites has had a profound impact on families across the Northern Territory and beyond. Like many Australians, I am devastated by the news that she has been found dead, and my thoughts are with her family and loved ones. As more details emerge, the focus must remain on supporting Sharon’s family and the work of authorities. (The name Sharon Granites is used in this article to ensure she is not reduced to a statistic. When speaking of her, I will call her Kumanjayi Little Baby in appropriate cultural settings.) Alongside that grief sits a question that cannot be ignored. How did this happen? It is a question that demands honesty. For too long, there has been a reluctance to speak plainly about the conditions in and around town camps. In reality, too many have become environments where safety is not guaranteed, particularly for children. There is constant movement. People coming and going. Individuals with long criminal histories moving in and out. Alcohol restrictions that exist on paper but are not enforced in practice. Overcrowding. Poor maintenance. Limited oversight. These are not new observations. The town camp now at the centre of this case is one I know well. It is a place where I have lost family. A niece was stabbed to death there. Another child in my extended family was killed in an accident at the front of that same camp. There have been too many lives lost in that place alone. And yet, these conditions persist. We know from Closing the Gap data that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children remain among the most vulnerable in the country. The Northern Territory continues to experience the highest domestic and family violence rates in the country. Approximately 100 women have been killed by intimate partners over the past 25 years. In 2024, seven of the nine homicide victims in the Territory were linked to domestic and family violence. These are not just statistics. They are indicators of risk. That risk too often goes unaddressed. Despite this, billions of dollars continue to flow through Indigenous organisations, land councils and local governance structures, yet the conditions on the ground tell a different story. The question is whether those outcomes are being delivered in practice. Where town camps remain unsafe and vulnerable people are exposed to harm, accountability is unavoidable. Pointing to funding levels is not enough. Nor is pointing to programs. What matters is that those investments are translating into safer lives. In too many cases, the answer is no. There has been a longstanding call for greater scrutiny. For an examination of how resources are allocated, how decisions are made, and whether those responsible for delivering outcomes are being held to account. I have raised these issues in Parliament. I have called for greater scrutiny of how funding is being used and for stronger action to protect vulnerable women and children. I have called for a broader inquiry into violence in our communities. This moment demands that they are not ignored any longer. An independent inquiry must now be on the table. Not only into the circumstances surrounding this case, but into the broader conditions that allow such vulnerability to persist. That includes the governance of town camps, the role of organisations responsible for their upkeep, and whether current laws and enforcement mechanisms are adequate to protect the most vulnerable. Because if they are not, they must change. Too often, difficult conversations are avoided. There is a reluctance to speak plainly about what is happening in some communities. Silence does not protect anyone, including women, children and families such as Sharon’s. We cannot continue to accept a situation where environments of known risk remain unchanged. Where warning signs are visible, but action is delayed. Where funding is substantial, but outcomes fall short. We have the resources. We have the knowledge. What is lacking is the willingness to insist on accountability and to follow through with meaningful reform. Sharon Granites is not a statistic. She is a little girl, part of a family, part of a community and part of this nation. Her death has forced a spotlight onto long-standing issues. The question now is whether we will respond to that reality. Not with rhetoric. Not with temporary measures. But with the seriousness it demands. Because until we do, the same question will continue to be asked. How did this happen? And why, when the risks were clear, did we allow them to remain?

What’s really sad is Punters Politics and the Greens KNOW FULL WELL most people don’t understand basic business stuff like this. And this is how leftists take over countries with easy slogans and cool sounding populist PR campaigns like “the rich gas corporations are stealing from us!” For once I think we can applaud the major parties for not caving-in to the populism. But it probably won’t last. @ljayes @ellymelly @OzInstProgress @AusPoll6 @DrewPavlou @TopherField @OzraeliAvi @EnergyWrapAU

The discipline of @piersmorgan to just sit there silently for the excruciating 90 seconds of page turning without interjecting at all…props

Absolutely outrageous from Gout Gout. 10.04 at the age of 16. Speechless.

International Energy Agency chief says that Europe has 'maybe six weeks' of jet fuel left, says current shock is 'the largest energy crisis we have ever faced', according to AP report.

A series of disjointed, hard-to-follow and sometimes-profane comments capped by threatening to wipe out Iran and attacking the pope have left many with the impression of a deranged autocrat mad with power and revived the debate about Trump's mental health. nytimes.com/2026/04/13/us/…

18-year-old GOUT GOUT 🇦🇺 19.67s (1.7) over 200m at Australian Championships in Sydney!!🤯🤯 A new U20 World Record ☑️ National Record ☑️ First Australian man under 20 seconds ☑️ A star is born!

🔴 Le New York Times vient de publier le récit le plus accablant sur Trump depuis le début de la guerre. Et c'est une bombe. Jonathan Swan et Maggie Haberman, deux journalistes de la Maison Blanche, révèlent comment Trump a pris la décision d'entrer en guerre contre l'Iran. Ce qu'ils décrivent est exactement ce que j'analyse dans Le Pantin de la Maison Blanche. Voici les faits. Netanyahu a vendu un rêve. Le 11 février, dans la Situation Room, le Premier ministre israélien a présenté un scénario en quatre actes : tuer le Guide Suprême, détruire l'armée iranienne, déclencher une révolution populaire, installer un nouveau régime. Il a même montré une vidéo de montage avec les "futurs dirigeants" de l'Iran. Trump a répondu : "Sounds good to me." En une phrase, il venait de sceller le destin de la région. Le lendemain, la CIA a dit que c'était du vent. Les parties 3 et 4 du pitch de Netanyahu, la révolution populaire et le changement de régime, ont été qualifiées de "farce" par Ratcliffe lui-même. Rubio a traduit : "In other words, it's bullshit." Le général Caine a ajouté : "C'est la procédure standard des Israéliens. Ils survendent, et leurs plans ne sont pas toujours bien développés." Trump a entendu. Et il a quand même dit oui. Vance a tout vu. Le vice-président était le seul dans la pièce à s'opposer frontalement, avertissant que la guerre pourrait "détruire la coalition politique de Trump", que le Détroit d'Ormuz était le vrai point de vulnérabilité, que personne ne pouvait prédire les représailles iraniennes quand la survie d'un régime était en jeu. Il a dit : "Tu sais que je pense que c'est une mauvaise idée. Mais si tu veux le faire, je te soutiendrai." Ce n'est pas du courage politique. C'est de la déférence. Susie Wiles a regardé. La cheffe de cabinet, qui avait des inquiétudes, a estimé que ce n'était "pas son rôle" de s'exprimer sur une décision militaire devant les autres. Elle a "encouragé les conseillers à partager leurs vues." Elle s'est tue. Le général Caine n'a jamais dit non. Il a exposé les risques : diminution des stocks de munitions, Détroit d'Ormuz, pas de voie claire vers la victoire. Puis il a dit : "Si vous ordonnez l'opération, l'armée exécutera." Trump, lui, "entendait seulement ce qu'il voulait entendre." Et Trump a signé à bord d'Air Force One, 22 minutes avant la deadline fixée par son propre général : "Operation Epic Fury is approved. No aborts. Good luck." Voilà comment on entre en guerre au XXIe siècle. Pas avec une délibération solennelle. Pas avec un vote du Congrès. Pas avec une stratégie de sortie. Avec un slide show de Netanyahu, un "sounds good to me", et une note envoyée depuis un avion. Dans Le Pantin de la Maison Blanche, j'écris que les vrais décideurs sont ceux qui préparent les présentations que Trump regarde. Netanyahu l'a compris mieux que quiconque. Il a mis en scène une heure de spectacle visuel dans la Situation Room avec Mossad en fond d'écran, des vidéos de "futurs dirigeants", une promesse de victoire rapide et propre. Et Trump a dit oui. Pendant que Vance, Rubio, Wiles et Caine regardaient. Voici l'article du New-York Times : nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/… 📖 Le Pantin de la Maison Blanche → amazon.fr/dp/B0GPCCMS68/

There is a fog in diplomacy as of war, but a few things stand out after the ceasefire announcement: 1. This may not be the end but it’s at least the beginning of the end. Trump’s bluster might have opened the Strait of Hormuz and ultimately avoided catastrophic attacks on Iran’s civilian infrastructure. Two weeks give the sides a chance to lock in a peace deal. But it may not be a good agreement. 2. Already, Iran says that ships can pass the Strait “via coordination with Iran’s Armed Forces.” That means that Tehran controls access, which was not the case before the war. It’s hard to see how the United States – or the world – can accept indefinite Iranian control of such a key energy chokepoint. 3. Trump says Iran’s 10 point plan is a workable basis for negotiation. But that plan includes Iranian control of the Strait, accepting Iran’s right to enrich uranium, lifting all sanctions, no attacks on proxies like Hezbollah, paying reparations, and the withdrawal of US combat forces from the Middle East. It's a regime wishlist. 4. Iran remains in possession of its stock of highly enriched uranium, which the President says can be monitored effectively by satellite. If that was sufficient to prevent its misuse, however, it’s not clear why attacking Iran was necessary in the first place. 5. The real threat was Iran’s growing stockpile of missiles and drones, which it would eventually have in such quantities as to overwhelm any reasonable regional defenses. Behind that umbrella, Tehran could pursued its malign aims, including on the nuclear front. So if there was a casus belli, it was to degrade those programs. 6. But the administration’s war aims were broader: no nuclear Iran, no missiles or drones, no navy, no blocking the Strait of Hormuz, no support to proxies, decapitating the leadership and, depending on the day, overthrowing the regime. 7. Instead the regime remains in place, with nuclear material, and with degraded forces that still allow it to menace neighbors and block the Strait. If Tehran gets a decent proportion of its desired 10 points, we may face a materially worse situation than when this all started. 8. That's not inevitable, and hopefully that outcome can be avoided. But the negotiators now have tremendous work before them.

The highest quality video of the moon was just released… this is so beautiful.

If this is ‘3-D Chess’, I’m an Aardvark.

I did not know it was $1.7B! Wild

#breaking No you're not getting an extra 10c off a litre Plan for extra fuel tax relief in disarray as states bicker over GST refund plan #auspol afr.com//politics/plan…

I do not believe for a second that our military targeted an elementary school. But if an errant American missile accidentally killed a building filled with children, we should take responsibility for it, not sweep it under the rug. nytimes.com/2026/03/08/wor… via @NYTimes

If true, this is horrific news--and the U.S. military will have to address this publicly. Proximity of military compound obviously a factor, but our weapons also have pinpoint accuracy. NEW: Investigators think American forces were likely responsible for an airstrike on a girls’ elementary school that killed dozens of children in Iran, a U.S. official said wsj.com/world/middle-e… via @WSJ

A rather scary read... and a repeat of what we saw in Gaza. "As planning for a potential strike in Iran was underway, Maven, powered by Claude, suggested hundreds of targets, issued precise location coordinates, and prioritized those targets according to importance, said two of the people. The pairing of Maven and Claude has created a tool that is speeding the pace of the campaign, reducing Iran’s ability to counterstrike and turning weeks-long battle planning into real-time operations, said one of the people. The AI tools also evaluate a strike after it is initiated, the person said." washingtonpost.com/technology/202…

Absolutely wild.

What? So the ‘preemptive threat’ was based on prior knowledge that (presumably) Israel was going to attack Iran? This is nuts.