Brittany Higgins says she hopes Justice Michael Lee’s judgment in Bruce Lehrmann’s failed defamation case will set a new precedent for how courts consider the testimonies of victims of sexual assault.

In a statement on Saturday, Higgins also said she was “devastated a rapist was given a nationwide platform to maintain his lies about what happened”. She hoped people who contributed to Channel Seven’s Spotlight program last June, in which Lehrmann was interviewed, “will reflect on their decision”.

But Higgins also apologised to the former defence minister Linda Reynolds and her then chief of staff Fiona Brown, after Lee’s judgment rejected Higgins’s claims of a political cover-up.

“I was raped. No judgment was ever going to change this truth,” Higgins said in her statement, which she posted to social media on Saturday afternoon.

“I lived with the shame, humiliation, and fear of what telling my story would mean for my life and career, like so many other victim survivors.

“I was scared I wouldn’t be believed or supported.”

In Monday’s decision dismissing Lehrmann’s action, Lee said the former Liberal staffer was not defamed by journalist Lisa Wilkinson and Network Ten when The Project broadcast an interview with Higgins on Monday 15 February 2021 in which she alleged she was raped in Parliament House.

He found that on the balance of probabilities Lehrmann raped Higgins on the minister’s couch in Parliament House in 2019.

But Lee said allegations there had been a political cover-up were “objectively short on facts but long on speculation”.

“Thanks to Justice Lee for his trauma informed approach, recognising that reactions to assault can vary widely,” Higgins said.

“In doing so, I hope he has set a new precedent for how courts consider the testimonies of victim survivors of sexual assault.”

Higgins said the toxic culture at Parliament House was not something she “just imagined” – and she had felt compelled to tell her story.

She noted thousands of staff who had worked in commonwealth ministerial offices and on both sides of politics subsequently came forward to contribute to Kate Jenkins’s review of parliamentary culture.

Higgins said while she did not agree with all of Lee’s findings, she respected his observations “about the many people scarred and damaged in the aftermath of my rape”. She said there were people who had been “unwittingly wrapped up in years’ worth of media discourse and legal battles in relation to my rape”.

“Senator Reynolds and Fiona Brown have also been hurt and for that I am also sorry,” she said.

“My perceptions and feelings about what happened in the days and weeks after my rape are different from theirs.

“I deeply regret we have not yet found common ground.”

She said she hoped they could resolve their differences with a better understanding of each other’s experiences.

“It is now time to heal.”

On Monday, Justice Michael Lee handed down his decision in the explosive defamation case brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.

He found – on the balance of probabilities – that Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins. Lehrmann has always denied the allegation and his criminal trial was aborted and the charge later dropped.

Higgins experienced all of about 40 hours of vindication before fresh criticisms were printed in one of the country’s newspapers.

The Australian ran a story quoting legal experts who suggested that, because Lee found that Higgins had made false representations to the government in her compensation settlement, she potentially could have to repay the $2.445m in compensation paid out to her.

So what happened? Will Higgins be investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and will she have to pay back the money?

A verdict has been handed down in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation trial – but the case will be back in court in less than a week.

The former Liberal staffer lost the defamation case he brought against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson, with Justice Michael Lee finding on Monday that on the balance of probabilities Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins on the minister’s couch in Parliament House in 2019.

“As a result of the inconclusive criminal trial, Mr Lehrmann remains a man who has not been convicted of any offence, but he has now been found, by the civil standard of proof, to have engaged in a great wrong,” Lee said. “It follows Ms Higgins has been proven to be a victim of sexual assault.”

Having lost the case, Lehrmann now faces a potentially large legal bill.

How much could Lehrmann have to pay?

The case will be back in court on Monday 22 April for a hearing on costs, where Lehrmann may be ordered to pay Ten’s legal bill, possibly to the tune of $8m, on top of his own.

It is open to Lehrmann to appeal against the judgment, but Lee said if he were to win on appeal his damages would only be $20,000 “because he is only entitled to be compensated for the reputation he deserves”.

• Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

Defamation expert Peter Bartlett, a partner at MinterEllison and the lead solicitor for Nine in the Ben Roberts-Smith trial, estimates Ten’s bill to be $8m because the network was paying for three firms of lawyers.

“The Ben Roberts-Smith case, for example, ran for 110 days and the costs were some $30m,” Bartlett told the Guardian.

“This case went for 23 days but Channel Ten had three firms of lawyers and three different silks.”

Bartlett said Fairfax, now Nine Entertainment, was able to recoup its costs in the defamation case because Seven West Media’s billionaire chairman Kerry Stokes was funding the former soldier’s case.

“We got an order for indemnity costs out of Stokes, so that way we got all our money back,” he said. “Ten can’t do that.”

What if Lehrmann can’t afford the bill?

By all accounts Lehrmann is jobless, homeless and is lacking significant means to pay Ten’s costs, so having successfully defended the case, the network could be saddled with the bill.

Wilkinson, a former Project presenter, filed a cross-claim against Ten over a dispute about payment of more than $700,000 in legal costs, and won, so she will be for the most part covered by Ten.

All the outstanding issues, including Wilkinson’s cross-claim, will be decided next week.

Bartlett said Lee’s judgment will be very well received and many journalists will be jealous of his excellent turn of phrase.

“I think the judgment very clearly analysed all of the evidence,” Bartlett said. “He was in an impossible position, having all of those witnesses in the box, and he took the view that, you know, a lot of them were not telling entirely the truth.

“So he had a very, very difficult job. A job that no one would want, and he did it very, very well.”

Could there be more legal action against Lehrmann?

Lehrmann also faces potential prosecution by the ACT after he was found by Lee to have breached the Harman undertaking when he leaked material he received in his criminal trial to Seven for its Spotlight program.

Lee said this action was “seriously wrong” and reflects very poorly upon Lehrmann’s character.

“Consistently with the instructions provided to his lawyers, Mr Lehrmann gave evidence during the trial to the effect that he did not give documents to the Seven Network, he just gave an interview,” Lee said.

“As I explained at the trial, I am not some sort of roving law enforcement official, and if any issue concerning an alleged breach of the Hearne v Street obligation is to be pursued in relation to anyone, it will not be by me, and it will not be by this Court.”

As the material Lehrmann leaked to Spotlight was provided to him as part of an ACT supreme court trial, he is subject to the court’s rules.

Those rules mean a person could be charged with contempt of court if they give those documents to people outside his case “without reasonable excuse”, a spokesperson for the ACT’s justice agency said.

The decision over whether to prosecute Lehrmann with contempt of court now lies with the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, the same party that dropped the charges in 2022 after concern for Higgins’ mental health after the first trial was aborted due to jury misconduct.

Elsewhere, Lehrmann is facing two charges of rape relating to an incident in Toowoomba in October 2021 and a committal cross-examination has been set down for 17 June.

What about other cases?

Former Liberal minister Linda Reynolds is suing Higgins for defamation over an Instagram post that included a list of complaints against the senator. The Western Australia supreme court case is ongoing and is likely to head for trial after a closed-door mediation earlier this year failed.

Neither Lehrmann nor Higgins had commented on the judgment as of Tuesday afternoon.

• Additional reporting by Sarah Basford Canales

In determining that Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins, the federal court justice Michael Lee took a giant knot of allegations, with all its loops and loose ends, and meticulously and painstakingly unpicked it.

That he did it with such acerbic clarity makes an already unusual judgment only more so.

Lee emerges from the legal wreckage of the Higgins-Lehrmann allegations as the only one to dispassionately pull on every thread. Partly this is due to the specific task he was set, neither advocating towards an outcome nor restricted to a particular aspect of what he has dubbed this “omnishambles” of a case.

But partly it is the process he chose in seeking to fulfil it.

To decide if Higgins’ allegations were true – and whether respondents Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson did enough to check – the judge had to apply a lesser test than if they were criminal proceedings. He only had to be satisfied “on the balance of probabilities”, not find them proven “beyond reasonable doubt” – the higher bar that criminal prosecutors must clear.

But to reach his conclusion, the judge also broke the issues down into component parts and separated out the allegations in a manner that criminal prosecutors in the Australian Capital Territory’s supreme court did not, before Lehrmann’s criminal trial for rape collapsed due to juror misconduct and was discontinued out of concern for Higgins’s mental health.

The fact that Lehrmann has had no criminal findings against him on Higgins’s rape allegation yet chose to launch defamation proceedings that risked the kind of civil ruling now delivered is why Lee remarked that “having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat”.

Lee started his task by examining what was originally alleged on Network Ten’s The Project in 2021. He determined from the outset that the program contained not one allegation but two.

Those were that then ministerial staffer Brittany Higgins had been raped on a couch in her boss’s office in March 2019, by a colleague not named – but, he argued, easily identifiable – as Bruce Lehrmann, and that attempts had been made to cover it up for political reasons.

Lee adopted this process because Ten and Wilkinson relied primarily on a truth defence: that Higgins had been raped. Their secondary qualified privilege defence involved arguing that they had acted reasonably in putting Higgins’ allegations to air and that broadcasting them was in the public interest.

To determine the truth question, Lee assessed the rape and cover-up allegations separately. He found the first proven, the second not.

In separating the two allegations, he also focused on two distinct periods of time. The first covered the original event in March 2019 and its aftermath. The second covered The Project’s broadcast in February 2021 and what flowed from it.

Lee then assessed the credibility of witnesses, including Lehrmann and Higgins, Wilkinson and her producers and advisers, and those with whom these key people relevantly engaged during those two periods.

He found that both Lehrmann and Higgins were unsatisfactory witnesses.

But he said Higgins’ testimony was most unreliable in relation to the second time period and the cover-up allegation. He found her evidence from the first time period and her later evidence surrounding the rape allegation was believable, likewise the corroborating evidence of witnesses who engaged with her at the time.

Potentially crucially for future sexual assault cases, Lee found that some of her subsequent recollections were wrong and behaviour contradictory but that the testimony had “a general thread” consistent with the actions and attempted memory corrections of a person traumatised by sexual assault.

In contrast, Lee branded Lehrmann a liar, not compulsive but persistent. Other than when Lehrmann was admitting to something, Lee found that most of what he said could not be believed. He examined all of Lehrmann’s contradictory explanations for his actions on the night in question through the lens of ordinary-person behaviour and pronounced them “fanciful” and defying logic.

So the judge decided the truth of the rape allegation had been established as per the civil-court test. He found differently on the “cover-up”.

He also found that the respondents’ secondary defence of qualified privilege had failed. Lee strongly criticised Higgins’s evidence on the alleged cover-up, along with the actions of Ten, and Wilkinson and her producers, both before The Project broadcast and since.

He found The Project team did not do as much as they could and should have to establish if Higgins’s allegations were true, including not trying hard enough to get Lehrmann’s side of the story.

Lee also examined Wilkinson’s acceptance speech at the 2022 Logies awards, which mentioned Higgins and caused a delay in Lehrmann’s criminal trial and which Lehrmann argued was highly prejudicial. Lee found the speech was “grossly improper and unjustifiable” because it implied Higgins’s allegations were true.

Lee said Ten had let Wilkinson down with its pre-Logies speech advice but that, as an experienced journalist, she should also have known better. Despite these significant criticisms and the failure of the back-up defence, the success of the first was enough. Given that defamation cases turn on whether an otherwise good reputation has been damaged, finding the applicant was a rapist rendered the respondents’ failings on other matters moot.

Lee’s judgment may yet be subject to appeal.

But his forensic breakdown of the tangle of original allegations, tweezering the strands apart with law and common sense, delivers valuable insights for future defamation and sexual assault prosecutions and for media practice.

It may also serve as a handy guide for judges in how to break down and assess a very complicated and controversial case with a cool eye, painstaking legal dissection and the application of everyday discernment. It’s also a fairly good example of how to communicate in a way that makes people listen and understand.

Faced with such a tangled web, that is quite a public service.

A man has died after setting himself on fire outside the New York courthouse where Donald Trump’s hush-money trial is taking place.

The New York City police department said on Saturday the man had been declared dead by staff at an area hospital.

Officials had said earlier the man, who was in his late 30s, was in critical condition.

The New York police department said the man, who they identified as Max Azzarello of St Augustine, Florida, did not appear to be targeting Trump or others involved in the trial.

Witnesses said the man pulled pamphlets out of a backpack and threw them in the air before he doused himself with a liquid and set himself on fire on Friday. One of those pamphlets included references to “evil billionaires” but portions that were visible to a Reuters witness did not mention Trump.

“Right now we are labelling him as sort of a conspiracy theorist, and we are going from there,” Tarik Sheppard, a deputy commissioner with the police department, said at a news conference.

A smell of smoke lingered in the plaza shortly after the incident, according to a Reuters witness, and a police officer sprayed a fire extinguisher on the ground.

The downtown Manhattan courthouse, heavily guarded by police, drew a throng of protesters and onlookers on Monday, the trial’s first day, but crowds have since dwindled.

Authorities said they were reviewing the security protocols in the area. The sidestreet where Trump enters and leaves the building is off limits.

“We may have to shut this area down,” said Kaz Daughtry, the New York City police department deputy commissioner, adding that officials would discuss the security plan soon.

An explosion has hit an Iraqi military base housing pro-Iranian paramilitaries, according to security sources.

The explosion on Friday night was at the Calso base, where former pro-Iranian paramilitary group Hashed al-Shaabi – now integrated into the regular army – is stationed, an interior ministry source and a military official told Agence France-Presse.

The ministry official said the attack killed one person and wounded eight others, while the military source said three Iraqi military personnel were wounded, according to AFP.

The Reuters news agency said two officials blamed the explosion on an airstrike but could not say who was responsible.

In a statement, Hashed al-Shaabi said the attack had inflicted “material losses” and casualties, without specifying the number of wounded. The organisation said an “explosion” had hit its premises.

“The explosion hit equipment, weapons and vehicles,” said the ministry source.

The security sources would not identify who was responsible for the attack or say whether it had been a drone strike. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack.

On social media, the US military said its forces were not behind the reported strike. “The United States has not conducted air strikes in Iraq today,” US Central Command (Centcom) posted on Twitter/X, adding that reports that American forces had carried out a strike were “not true”.

Hashed al-Shaabi, an alliance of mainly Shia armed groups formed to fight Islamic State, is now a part of Iraq’s security forces. It is also variously known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, People’s Mobilization Committee or the Popular Mobilization Units.

The attack on the pro-Iranian paramilitaries comes amid regional tensions over the war between Israel and Tehran-backed Palestinian-militants Hamas.

On Friday, strikes blamed on Israel targeted a military base near Isfahan in Iran, in apparent retaliation for a largely failed Iranian attempt to carpet-bomb Israel with drones and missiles.

With Agence France-Presse and Reuters

World leaders urged calm on Friday after Israel conducted a pre-dawn drone sortie over Iran following a cycle of tit-for-tat attacks that crossed an important red line that has for decades held the Middle East back from a major regional conflict.

There were tentative hopes late on Friday that the apparent strike attempt against an airbase near the city of Isfahan was sufficiently limited to fend off the threat of a bigger Iranian response and an uncontrolled spiral of violence between a nuclear power and a state with the capacity to develop nuclear weapons quickly.

According to Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, speaking later on Friday, the US told the G7 foreign ministers meeting in Capri that it had received “last-minute” information from Israel about a drone action in Iran. Israel’s N12 news channel reported that Israel had also struck targets in Iraq and Syria, and explosions were reported in both those countries.

Iran’s foreign minister, Hossein Amirabdollahian, said the sortie on Isfahan involved miniature drones and had caused no damage or casualties.

“The Zionist regime’s media supporters, in a desperate effort, tried to make victory out of their defeat, while the downed mini-drones have not caused any damage or casualties,” Amirabdollahian told envoys of Muslim nations during a visit to the UN in New York, according to Iranian media. Tehran has indicated that it had no “immediate” plan for retaliation.

“We’re committed to Israel’s security,” the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said at the G7 meeting. “We’re also committed to de-escalating.”

Blinken added that despite the confrontation, the US remained “intensely focused on Gaza”, where at least 34,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s war against Hamas and well over a million people have been forced to flee their homes.

The G7 and the European Commission both made calls for the simmering conflict to be defused. The UN secretary general, António Guterres, in his own intervention, said it was “high time to stop the dangerous cycle of retaliation in the Middle East”.

US and European officials were concerned that the breaking of the taboo on direct attacks between the two powers had left the region in a far more precarious position in the coming months and years, as Israel plans to continue its relentless campaign in Gaza, deepening the humanitarian disaster there, and openly weighing a war in Lebanon with Hezbollah, a close Iranian ally.

The Tehran government appeared to shrug off the Friday morning incident near an airbase near the city of Isfahan where it said air defences had brought down three drones, which had been launched inside Iran. A few hours earlier, the foreign ministry had warned that any new Israeli attack would be met with a “maximal” and “decisive” response, but the lengths state media went to minimise the incursion appeared designed to leave the option of not responding.

US officials confirmed that Israel had conducted military operations against Iran and had given Washington a few hours’ notice, but did not give any details of those operations. It remained unclear on Friday night whether only drones had been involved, whether any munitions had actually hit their targets, or had been intercepted, and where the sortie had been launched from.

Reuters quoted a source familiar with western intelligence assessments as agreeing with the initial Iranian claim that the drones had taken off inside Iranian territory, suggesting either special forces or an Iranian faction allied to Israel was involved. Previous attacks inside Iran have been attributed to Israel, including a drone strike also on a weapons factory in Isfahan in January 2023.

Joe Biden’s administration had sought to defuse a brewing conflict which had begun with the Israeli bombing of a Iranian consular building in Damascus, killing a top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) general and six other officers, for which Iran retaliated on Sunday morning by launching about 300 missiles and drones at Israel, almost all of which were intercepted.

According to a Reuters account, Biden was successful in persuading members of Israel’s security cabinet from striking back at Iranian territory on Monday night. Ministers Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, both former armed forces commanders, were reportedly pressing for a forceful and quick response but agreed to hold off following a conversation with Biden, and in the face of differing views from other ministers, Reuters reported, citing two Israeli officials. Planned operations against Iran were postponed twice according to that account.

US officials said that they had been informed by their Israeli counterparts soon after Sunday’s missile and drone attack by Iran, that some form of Israeli counter-strike was inevitable, but the Israelis assured Washington that their response would be “smart” and would not target Iran’s nuclear sites.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed on Friday there had been no damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities. The agency said on the X social media platform that it was continuing to monitor the situation closely and called for maximum restraint from all sides, stressing that “nuclear facilities should never be a target in military conflicts”.

Friday morning’s strike, whatever its scale, was an act of defiance of US influence. Netanyahu, in particular, has long been a hawk on Iran, having threatened Israeli strikes on the country in the past, and has been under pressure from far-right coalition partners to mount a robust response.

With the scale of the retaliation so far extremely limited, the far-right Israeli national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, condemned the response on X as “Feeble!”

Iran’s missile and drone attack on Israel had, by the end of this week, become one of the most interpreted events in recent modern history. Then, in the early hours of Friday, came reports of Israel’s riposte. As in June 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated in a moment that ultimately led to the first world war, these shots were heard around the world, even if few can agree conclusively on what they portend.

By one de minimis account, Tehran was merely sending a performative warning shot with its attack last Saturday, almost taking its ballistic missiles out for a weekend test drive. The maximalist version is that this was a state-on-state assault designed to change the rules of the Middle East. By swarming Israel with so many projectiles, such an assessment goes, Iran was prepared to risk turning Israel into a mini-Dresden of 1945 and was only thwarted by Israeli strategic defences and, crucially, extraordinary cooperation between the US, Israel and Sunni Gulf allies.

Whatever Iran’s ultimate intention, its assault and now Israel’s reported counterattack have presented the Gulf states with dilemmas and acute choices, according to Hugh Lovatt of the European Council on Foreign Relations. How they respond may determine the outcome of the crisis.

The key question is: do the Sunni monarchies led by Saudi Arabia fear Iran and its proxies more than they detest Israel and the damage it is inflicting on Palestinians and regional stability?

For the past six months, that choice has been suppressed, as Iran and the Sunni states have forged a fragile united front. In January, Saudi Arabia ensured that Iran had a seat at the table through a joint meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (GCC-IOC).

Nevertheless, the two sides have resolute disagreements – over a two-state solution, a future role for Hamas, and whether state boycotts or disinvestment, once a common tool of the Arab states against Israel, should be used in this crisis to put the pressure on Israel that Joe Biden was not willing to deploy.

Further, Iran has made no secret of its desire to see the US driven out of the region, a vision that the Gulf states do not share.

Cooperation with Israel

At issue is whether Arab states’ cooperation with Israel to repel Iran’s attack denotes something bigger and more permanent. One school of thought is articulated by Martyn Idynk, a former US ambassador to Israel, who told a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) briefing of the Iranian attack: “What happened … is the Sunni Arabs, particularly Jordan and Saudi Arabia, came out of the closet and made it clear that the threat from Iran was far greater than anything. What we discovered was that the strategic coordination between the US and Israel is a lot further along than most of us knew … and [Arab states] who have been attacked by Iranian missiles and rockets before now have a credible defence umbrella that is part of a US-Sunni-Israel strategic cooperation arrangement.”

He said the Gulf states no longer cared if the world knew about this alliance and that as long as the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, could show a sensitivity to Arab concerns, the basis existed to develop the Israeli-Sunni relationship.

It is certainly true that the Gulf states’ role in the defence of Israel has been long in the making. “We have been practising our steps together over and over for years,” said one British official. This is based on the supposition that the Arab states and Israel are “frenemies”.

Speaking about the defence operation launched against the incoming barrage from Tehran, the CFR fellow Max Boot said: “This is a huge win for this de facto Centcom alliance and this new air defence network. A 99% interception rate is off the charts. The US played a huge role, but so did the Arabs.”

Some Gulf nations have been more coy about their role than others, fearing a domestic backlash. Qatar had no involvement despite hosting the largest US base in the Middle East. Equally, no US F-35s flew from Dhafra air base in the United Arab Emirates. Kuwait may have allowed US planes into the sky, not to attack Iran missiles, but to carry out “routine intelligence” sorties. Saudi Arabia’s airborne warning and control system was operational, possibly providing intelligence.

Above all, Jordan made no effort to disguise the fact that it was shooting down Iranian drones to defend its sovereign airspace, prompting angry exchanges between the two countries. These included Jordan accusing Iran of having used the militant Muslim Brotherhood group and its Iraqi militia proxies for months to mount infiltration operations on its territory to stir up the largest Palestinian population in the region.

The US military has for years been advocating an integrated air defence alliance, stitching together the Gulf states and Israel.

Stage one was the Abraham accords in 2020, through which Bahrain and the UAE normalised relations with Israel. Stage two happened in September 2021 with the relocation of Israel into Centcom, the US-Middle East combatant command that includes Arab states.

The question now is whether the latest events will result in an anti-Iranian air defence alliance, and if so, on what terms.

Dana Stroul, who until December was the most senior civilian official at the Pentagon with responsibility for the Middle East, insisted: “Whatever regional politicians may say, the military, security and intelligence establishments of both the Arab states and Israel are quite clear – that Iran is the centre of gravity for instability, the export of terrorism and its illicit nuclear weapons programme.”

Little attempt has been made in the Saudi press to disguise Riyadh’s irritation with Iran. In Arab News, Abdulaziz Sagar, the chair of the Gulf Research Centre, wrote: “The Iranian leadership has tried to position itself as the guardian of the rights of the Palestinian people and the leading player in the Palestinian struggle against Israel. This policy turned into the hijacking of the Palestinian cause and employing the plight of the Palestinians in an utterly obscure manner to support Iran’s expansionist and interventionist regional policy and national interests.”

He added: “The inevitable outcome of the Iranian missile attack on Israel is the breakdown of the myth … that the Iranian leaders imparted on the imaginations of the Arab world: that supporting Iran, its revolution and its leaders is the only way to effectively deal with Israeli arrogance and aggression.”

In Israel, politicians hope the Saudis will see the week’s events as a turning point. The defence minister, Yoav Gallant, said: “We have an opportunity here to establish a strategic alliance against this serious threat from Iran, which threatens to put nuclear explosives on the heads of these missiles.”

But Stroul urged caution. “If this integrated air defence is about the sovereign airspace of our partners, there is room to work together, but if we try to push this into an anti-Iran, pro-Israel coalition, our partners will be nervous.”

Furthermore, some regard it as overblown triumphalism to suggest that the Gulf states are about to meaningfully intensify relations with Israel. Lovatt said Arab nations’ cooperation with the response to Iran’s attack could be seen simply as an attempt to limit the damage inflicted by Tehran, and so prevent an escalatory Israeli response.

He said Riyadh’s foreign policy was on a new course of putting its own economy first, and that was the purpose of the Saudi-Iranian agreement reached in 2013 with the help of Iraq and China.

Palestinian future

Saudi Arabia, along with Qatar, Jordan, the UAE and Egypt, had in recent months invested heavily in their own Palestinian peace plan, he pointed out. This included proposals for a ceasefire, followed by an Arab international protection force operating in both Gaza and, significantly, the West Bank. Under the plan, the protection force would be formed at the request of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and not be externally imposed. This would be the precursor to peace talks lasting no more than two years leading to the formation of a Palestinian state.

All parties would have to agree to this end point, presenting an obstacle for Netanyahu. The plan promised Israeli regional recognition and integration at the end stage. Lovatt said the Arab states had hoped to release the plan in March, but it had been delayed by the US. A key element would include giving Hamas a role within a rejuvenated Palestinian leadership organisation.

It was possible, Lovatt said, that Iran could be brought on board for this, despite its longstanding opposition to a two-state solution. Noting that Iran signed a GCC-IOC statement supporting a two-state solution in January, he said that should a concrete plan emerge for this, Palestinians, including Hamas, accepted it may be possible to persuade Tehran.

Although there is widespread cynicism about Saudi intentions towards the Palestinians, many British officials insisted Riyadh was speaking enthusiastically about the possibility of staging a peace conference. Saudi diplomats themselves have denied that they would jettison the Palestinians if Biden met Riyadh’s demands for its own security in return for normalisation with Israel.

Tobias Borck, the Middle East lead at the the RUSI defence thinktank, said: “The Palestinian issue stands alongside Riyadh’s own domestic national interests, but I think the Saudis are keenly aware that the kind of stability they want in the region is only really possible when this volatility from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is somehow tamed.”

On this basis, he noted, Saudi Arabia would resist more conflict with Iran for now, regarding it as a diversion, and instead insist the world’s gaze must not turn from Gaza.

The “bunyip bird” – named after a mythological river-lurking, human-eating monster – is as elusive as its namesake. Also known as the Australasian bittern, it is heard more often than it is seen.

It means that when bittern expert Geoff Shannon discovered the bird at Tasmania’s recently restored Lagoon of Islands – the first time it had been seen there in 40 years – it was a “very special moment”.

Hearing the distinctive call of the bittern “proved they were here … and trying to breed”, Shannon says.

The bittern is listed as endangered under the federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, but is not acknowledged as threatened under Tasmanian legislation.

Shannon says it used to be a common species, but its numbers had fallen dramatically over recent decades, due to drought and the drainage of marshlands for agricultural use.

Estimates suggest they number around 100 in Tasmania, he says, and about 1,000 on mainland Australia where they are often found in rice paddies. But he adds that it is difficult to know their exact numbers.

Bitterns are also hard to spot: they are well camouflaged, fly only occasionally and are most active at night.

• Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads

“The bittern fascinates a lot of people because it is so secretive,” Shannon says. “It’s a big bird that you don’t see, and that makes it special.

“You’ve got to know what you’re looking for and be prepared for it. Their heads don’t stay above the reeds for very long.

“We need to know where they are and make sure that their habitats are not being destroyed.”

Bitterns are known for their calls, said to mimic the boom of the bunyip, a creature from Aboriginal mythology. People also liken the deep, low-pitched call to that used by deer, Shannon says.

“It’s an unusual call … you get three over a period of 30 to 60 seconds, and then there may be a 10 to 15 minute gap before you hear it again,” he says. “So you’ve got to be focused and know what you’re listening for.”

Elizabeth Znidersic, an ecologist at Charles Sturt University, says the return of the bittern’s call was a sign that the lagoon had been successfully restored after previously being dammed by Hydro Tasmania.

“Sound is a very critical part of a healthy ecosystem,” she says. “If you don’t hear insects, if you don’t hear frogs, if you don’t hear birds … there’s something very wrong.”

She says more work is needed to help the bittern recover.

The species is threatened by invasive species, including foxes and cats, and global heating, which contributes to prolonged drought and wet periods that can endanger their habitat.

Bec Sheldon, a Hydro Tasmania hydrologist who helped restore the Lagoon of Islands, says the return of the bittern shows the site is “fully restored”. She says she and colleagues had attempted to reinstate the natural water system at the lagoon since 2013, when the dam was decommissioned.

In the years since, the lagoon has “largely done its own thing”, she says, and the site was declared fully restored in 2021.

“Often if you can restore natural hydrology, [wildlife] will spontaneously start returning,” Sheldon says.

The “bunyip bird” – named after a mythological river-lurking, human-eating monster – is as elusive as its namesake. Also known as the Australasian bittern, it is heard more often than it is seen.

It means that when bittern expert Geoff Shannon discovered the bird at Tasmania’s recently restored Lagoon of Islands – the first time it had been seen there in 40 years – it was a “very special moment”.

Hearing the distinctive call of the bittern “proved they were here … and trying to breed”, Shannon says.

The bittern is listed as endangered under the federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, but is not acknowledged as threatened under Tasmanian legislation.

Shannon says it used to be a common species, but its numbers had fallen dramatically over recent decades, due to drought and the drainage of marshlands for agricultural use.

Estimates suggest they number around 100 in Tasmania, he says, and about 1,000 on mainland Australia where they are often found in rice paddies. But he adds that it is difficult to know their exact numbers.

Bitterns are also hard to spot: they are well camouflaged, fly only occasionally and are most active at night.

• Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads

“The bittern fascinates a lot of people because it is so secretive,” Shannon says. “It’s a big bird that you don’t see, and that makes it special.

“You’ve got to know what you’re looking for and be prepared for it. Their heads don’t stay above the reeds for very long.

“We need to know where they are and make sure that their habitats are not being destroyed.”

Bitterns are known for their calls, said to mimic the boom of the bunyip, a creature from Aboriginal mythology. People also liken the deep, low-pitched call to that used by deer, Shannon says.

“It’s an unusual call … you get three over a period of 30 to 60 seconds, and then there may be a 10 to 15 minute gap before you hear it again,” he says. “So you’ve got to be focused and know what you’re listening for.”

Elizabeth Znidersic, an ecologist at Charles Sturt University, says the return of the bittern’s call was a sign that the lagoon had been successfully restored after previously being dammed by Hydro Tasmania.

“Sound is a very critical part of a healthy ecosystem,” she says. “If you don’t hear insects, if you don’t hear frogs, if you don’t hear birds … there’s something very wrong.”

She says more work is needed to help the bittern recover.

The species is threatened by invasive species, including foxes and cats, and global heating, which contributes to prolonged drought and wet periods that can endanger their habitat.

Bec Sheldon, a Hydro Tasmania hydrologist who helped restore the Lagoon of Islands, says the return of the bittern shows the site is “fully restored”. She says she and colleagues had attempted to reinstate the natural water system at the lagoon since 2013, when the dam was decommissioned.

In the years since, the lagoon has “largely done its own thing”, she says, and the site was declared fully restored in 2021.

“Often if you can restore natural hydrology, [wildlife] will spontaneously start returning,” Sheldon says.

Elon Musk and his social media company X have accused Australia’s eSafety commissioner of censorship and say they will challenge in court an order to remove content on the site relating to Monday’s Sydney church stabbing.

On Tuesday the eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, said that X and Meta were issued with a notice to remove material within 24 hours that depicted “gratuitous or offensive violence with a high degree of impact or detail”, with the companies facing potential fines if they failed to comply.

The notices related to the alleged stabbing of bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel at a service at the Assyrian Christ the Good Shepherd church in Wakeley. The service was being livestreamed and a recording of it circulated online, along with other videos of the aftermath.

But early Saturday morning Australian time, X issued a statement accusing the watchdog of pursuing global censorship and vowing the company will “robustly challenge this unlawful and dangerous approach in court”.

The statement from X’s global government affairs team, which was reposted by the company’s owner, Elon Musk, said the company complied with the directive by the commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, to remove “certain posts in Australia that publicly commented” on Monday’s attack.

• Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

But it did not believe the orders were “within the scope of Australian law” and it only complied “pending a legal challenge”.

It said that X then received another “demand” from the commissioner that it “globally withhold these posts or face a daily fine” of A$785,000.

Musk said in reposting the statement that “The Australian censorship commissar [sic] is demanding *global* content bans!”.

The commissioner’s office declined to comment on X’s statement.

It is understood the commissioner made multiple attempts to ensure X had been fully compliant with Tuesday’s order after videos and images of the attack continued to circulate on the platform, despite the company claiming it had complied.

The NSW premier, Chris Minns, said he was shocked but not surprised by X’s statement.

“This is exactly as I would expect from X or Twitter or whatever you would call it: a disregard for the information they pump into our communities, lies and rumours spreading like wildfire and then when things go wrong, throwing their hands up in the air to say they are not prepared to do anything about it,” Minns said on Saturday.

“We have had enough, Sydney has had enough.”

He said the platform allowed rumours about the church stabbing to spread unencumbered in such a way that it fuelled resulting riots, and called for stronger laws governing social media platforms.

“To think about young police officers who have to go into harm’s way to calm down a riot based on a rumour or innuendo means that their job is virtually next to impossible for them.

“It is about time we strengthen rules in relation to the eSafety commissioner or the federal government or penalties that are in place for social media companies, we would all be in favour of that.”

Minns said the government had “wrestled” with the idea of leaving the platform, where he, other ministers and multiple departments including NSW police have accounts, but that to do so would mean only “bad actors” remained on the site.

The federal health minister, Mark Butler, said Australia was “not going to be bullied by Elon Musk, or any other tech billionaire, in our commitment to making sure that social media is a safe space”.

He told reporters in Adelaide that if X wanted to challenge the ban or any fines in court then “we’re up for that fight”.

The communications minister, Michelle Rowland, said the government supported the stance taken by the commissioner.

“The government is united with eSafety in our very clear expectation that social media companies remove this content immediately,” she said in a statement on Saturday.

“If you operate in Australia, you should comply with the law. It’s as simple as that.”

On Friday, the commission said in a statement that it was continuing to “engage with all major social media platforms regarding the resharing and reposting of … content depicting recent violence in Sydney”.

“We expect platforms that benefit from Australians using their service to make genuine efforts to protect our citizens from harmful content and, in particular, to enforce their own terms of service.

“In relation to X Corp, eSafety is working to ensure the company’s full and complete compliance with Australian law. We are considering whether further regulatory action is warranted.

“eSafety is disappointed that process has been unnecessarily prolonged, rather than prioritising the safety of Australians and the Australian community.”

In its statement, X said it respected the right of a country to enforce its laws within its jurisdiction.

However, it added, “the eSafety commissioner does not have the authority to dictate what content X’s users can see globally”.

“We will robustly challenge this unlawful and dangerous approach in court.

“Global takedown orders go against the very principles of a free and open internet and threaten free speech everywhere.”

The statement said the “recent attacks in Australia are a horrific assault on free society”.

“Our condolences go out to those who have been affected, and we stand with the Australian people in calling for those responsible to be brought to justice.

“This was a tragic event and we do not allow people to praise it or call for further violence.

“There is a public conversation happening about the event, on X and across Australia, as is often the case when events of major public concern occur.”

A man has died and multiple people have been injured in a crash between a car and bus near Dubbo in the central west of New South Wales.

Police said they had launched a critical incident investigation into the crash, which occurred on the Mitchell Highway on Saturday morning.

The driver of the sedan, believed to be a 32-year-old man from western NSW, died at the scene. He is yet to be formally identified.

Several of the 26 people on the bus were treated by NSW Ambulance paramedics for minor injuries.

Seven passengers were taken to hospital for minor and non-life threatening injuries.

The driver of the bus was taken to Dubbo hospital for mandatory testing.

• Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

At a media conference on Saturday afternoon, NSW police assistant commissioner Rod Smith said the 54-year-old female driver of the bus had taken “evasive action and probably saved the lives of a lot of people”.

Smith said police had been called to a domestic incident outside Dubbo at about 8.45am on Saturday.

They saw the Mazda being driven from the scene of that incident and turned around to try to pull the car over. He said the driver did not stop and a short pursuit ensued but it was terminated “due to the manner of driving of the offending vehicle”.

“Police were then establishing other ways that they might be able to stop that vehicle,” Smith said.

“At about quarter past nine, that vehicle crossed to the incorrect side of the road and collided head-on with the bus traveling in the other direction.”

Smith said the pursuit had lasted no more than a few minutes and was, at times, “quite slow in speed”.

“But the vehicle was accelerating, braking, going off the side of the road and then on to the incorrect side of the road, which caused the police some significant concern.”

That’s when police took the decision to terminate the pursuit, he said.

He said a critical incident team from Chifley police district was at the scene and would investigate the circumstances surrounding the crash.

In an earlier statement, a spokesperson for NSW police said officers from the Orana Mid Western police district were patrolling the Mitchell Highway at about 9.15am on Saturday when they attempted to stop a Mazda sedan.

“Police activated lights and sirens in an attempt to stop the vehicle; when it failed to stop as directed a pursuit was initiated before being terminated due to safety concerns,” a spokesperson said.

“A short time later, the car hit a bus on the Mitchell Highway, approximately one kilometre east of the intersection of Mitchell Highway and Eulomogo Road, Dubbo.”

The investigation will be subject to an independent review and a report will be prepared for the coroner.

The Mitchell Highway was expected to be closed for several hours in both directions, and motorists were urged to avoid the area.

Chris Pratt has drawn ire from architecture aficionados after news broke that the actor and his wife, Katherine Schwarzenegger, had razed a historic, mid-century modern home to make way for a sprawling 15,000-sq-ft mansion.

Last year, the couple purchased the 1950 Zimmerman house, designed by the architect Craig Ellwood, in Los Angeles’s Brentwood neighborhood for $12.5m. The residence, with landscaping by Garrett Eckbo – who has been described as the pioneer of modern landscaping – had previously been featured in Progressive Architecture magazine.

It was most recently home to the late Hilda Rolfe, the widow of Sam Rolfe, co-creator of the series The Man from Uncle. Video of the property from December 2022 shows a light-filled home that appears to have been well-preserved, with large windows, wood floors and mid-century furniture.

The single-story home and its grounds have since been cleared and in its place will be a massive home in the modern farmhouse style that has come to dominate US suburbs.

Architect Ken Ungar, whose portfolio largely features high-end modern farmhouse-style residences, will design a home for the couple, Architectural Digest reported. The property, which is just across the street from Schwarzenegger’s mother, Maria Shriver, will also feature a three-car garage and a secondary unit near the pool.

The Los Angeles Conservancy, a non-profit that seeks to save and protect historic buildings, warned of the impending demolition in January and said that the residence appeared “to be highly intact and a noteworthy example of modernist design from this era”.

The city’s SurveyLA program had identified the property as potentially historic, but no protections were afforded, the conservancy wrote on Instagram.

The Eichler Network, which covers mid-century homes in California, lamented the destruction.

“At the same time as architectural homes are being marketed as high-end, collectible art, others are being torn down to build new,” the writer Adriene Biondo said. “Perhaps a historic-cultural monument designation could have saved the Zimmerman house, or allowed the necessary time to delay demolition. Tragically, calls for preservation fell on deaf ears.”

Chris Pratt has drawn ire from architecture aficionados after news broke that the actor and his wife, Katherine Schwarzenegger, had razed a historic, mid-century modern home to make way for a sprawling 15,000-sq-ft mansion.

Last year, the couple purchased the 1950 Zimmerman house, designed by the architect Craig Ellwood, in Los Angeles’s Brentwood neighborhood for $12.5m. The residence, with landscaping by Garrett Eckbo – who has been described as the pioneer of modern landscaping – had previously been featured in Progressive Architecture magazine.

It was most recently home to the late Hilda Rolfe, the widow of Sam Rolfe, co-creator of the series The Man from Uncle. Video of the property from December 2022 shows a light-filled home that appears to have been well-preserved, with large windows, wood floors and mid-century furniture.

The single-story home and its grounds have since been cleared and in its place will be a massive home in the modern farmhouse style that has come to dominate US suburbs.

Architect Ken Ungar, whose portfolio largely features high-end modern farmhouse-style residences, will design a home for the couple, Architectural Digest reported. The property, which is just across the street from Schwarzenegger’s mother, Maria Shriver, will also feature a three-car garage and a secondary unit near the pool.

The Los Angeles Conservancy, a non-profit that seeks to save and protect historic buildings, warned of the impending demolition in January and said that the residence appeared “to be highly intact and a noteworthy example of modernist design from this era”.

The city’s SurveyLA program had identified the property as potentially historic, but no protections were afforded, the conservancy wrote on Instagram.

The Eichler Network, which covers mid-century homes in California, lamented the destruction.

“At the same time as architectural homes are being marketed as high-end, collectible art, others are being torn down to build new,” the writer Adriene Biondo said. “Perhaps a historic-cultural monument designation could have saved the Zimmerman house, or allowed the necessary time to delay demolition. Tragically, calls for preservation fell on deaf ears.”

The New South Wales Liberal party has expelled state MP Taylor Martin as a result of an investigation into text messages he sent to a woman with whom he was in a relationship.

Martin, who has been a member of the NSW upper house since 2017, has sat outside the Liberal party room since July last year after the party launched the investigation.

At the time, Martin unreservedly apologised for what he called “heated words” during an “undignified breakup”. The text messages were allegedly sent by Martin to a woman he was in a relationship with, who wishes to remain anonymous.

In a statement on Friday, the NSW Liberal party state director, Richard Shields, said a report on the investigation had been received and Martin would be expelled as a result.

“On the basis of the report’s findings the NSW Liberal party state director has acted quickly and decisively, ratified by the state executive, to expel Mr Martin as a member of the NSW division,” Shields said.

“The NSW Liberal party expects the highest standards of behaviour of its members and elected representatives and will continue to strive to ensure those standards are consistently upheld.”

The NSW Liberal leader, Mark Speakman, said on Friday night that he supported the party’s decision to expel Martin and that the public was “entitled to expect the highest standards of behaviour by MPs”.

The report has not been released, and the party said it remains confidential.

Martin said he was shocked and disappointed with the finding. In July he had said he was “young and inexperienced” in a situation that was “way beyond me”.

“There were heated words during my attempts to go separate ways that I sincerely regret. It was an ugly and undignified parting of ways.”

In 2022, a report uncovered systemic bullying, five alleged sexual assaults and widespread harassment within the state’s parliament.

The review, conducted by former sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, uncovered “systemic and multi-directional bullying, with more than a third of respondents saying they had been bullied or sexually harassed over the past five years.

A third person has been charged with rioting outside a Sydney church after the stabbing of bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel on Monday.

An estimated 2,000 people descended on the Wakeley church after the attack on Emmanuel, damaging 94 police vehicles and leaving 26 officers injured, according to police.

New South Wales police said that about 7.20am on Saturday they arrested a man in Horningsea Park in Sydney’s west.

The 28-year-old was later charged with the offence of “ threaten violence, cause fear” and he was expected to face Parramatta bail court on Saturday.

On Friday evening another man, 45-year-old Sam Haddad, was arrested at a Fairfield Heights home and charged with rioting and threatening violence and causing fear over his alleged involvement in the wild scenes outside the Assyrian Christ the Good Shepherd church on Monday night.

Haddad fronted Parramatta bail court on Saturday and was granted bail on the condition he report to police every day and live at a specific address.

He was next due before Fairfield local court on Wednesday.

A 16-year-old boy has been charged with committing a terrorist act in relation to the alleged stabbing, which was seen on a livestream of Emmanuel’s service.

His lawyer, Greg Scragg, told a court on Friday that the boy had a history of receiving treatment for his mental health since he was five years old and had shown behaviour consistent with mental illness or intellectual disability.

• Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

The charge comes with a potential sentence of life in prison.

The first person arrested and charged for taking part in the riots was granted bail on Thursday after appearing at Blacktown local court.

Dani Mansour, 19, was charged with riot, affray and destroying or damaging property as part of the mob that allegedly attacked police.

Mansour was granted bail on strict conditions, including a ban on accessing social media.

He must present his phone to police once a week, cannot contact anyone involved in the riot, can only travel to and from work, cannot enter Wakeley, cannot attend the church, and he must report to police every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

The court heard Mansour allegedly filmed himself smashing two police vehicles and taking part in the riot, posting the footage to his personal Instagram page.

He will face court again on 2 May.

The NSW police commissioner, Karen Webb, has said police needed help identifying the rioters, some of whom wore masks during the violence.

The force established Strike Force Dribs to investigate the rioters.

“People in the community know who they are, their families know who they are, and we need to know who they are,” Webb said.

“We have some people that have jumped on multiple police cars. One individual has a very distinctive tattoo on his torso, of a face, while he has cowardly hid his own face.”

Webb said 42 detectives were working to identify 50 people from the 2,000 that were present.

“The sooner they are identified [and] put before the court, the sooner they can be dealt with.”

A proposed windfarm next to the wet tropics world heritage area in north Queensland will not go ahead after the federal government signalled it would refuse the project.

Ark Energy had proposed building the 42-turbine Wooroora Station windfarm – formerly known as the Chalumbin windfarm project – 15km south-west of Ravenshoe.

The project would have cleared almost 509 ha of vegetation and conservationists were concerned, with its location bordering the world heritage area, of the impact on one of the most biodiverse regions in Australia.

The environment and water minister, Tanya Plibersek, said she had made a proposed decision to refuse the project because it would have an unacceptable impact on the environment. She said Ark Energy had now withdrawn its plans and the project would not go ahead.

“Ultimately I decided the effects of this project on nature are too great and could not be accommodated,” she said.

Plibersek said the project would have cleared one of the last remaining areas of wet sclerophyll forest, a type of woodland that occurs between rainforest and the more open plains of far north Queensland.

• Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

“It provides a vital habitat for many birds, plants and animals, including the spectacled flying-fox and the northern greater glider [Petauroides minor],” she said.

Ark Energy’s project lead Damian Vermey said they had worked hard to put forward a proposal with minimal environmental impact.

“After consideration we have decided to withdraw the referral. A huge effort was made to minimise the proposal’s environmental impacts and offer real potential for environmental net gains, but we accept that some may have a different view,” he said.

The Queensland Conservation Council said it was welcome news for the community that the area would remain intact.

“We wholeheartedly support the transition to clean energy and the development of windfarms in Queensland but, with the amount of biodiversity loss we’ve seen to date in Australia, we cannot afford to build projects in such environmentally significant locations” the council’s director, Dave Copeman, said.

In a separate announcement on Saturday, the minister said she had approved Neoen’s proposed Mount Hopeful windfarm, a 63-turbine project located 45km south of Rockhampton. The project will generate enough energy to power 240,000 homes.

Plibersek said the project took the number of renewables developments she had signed off on as minister to 46, which would deliver energy for almost 3m homes. Plibersek said there were a further 130 projects in the pipeline as the government moved to “unlock Australia’s potential to be a world leader in renewable energy”.

“But renewables have to comply with national environment laws, like all other projects,” she said.

“It just about the right kind of development, in the right places, done in the right way.”

Ark Energy’s decision to withdraw its application comes days after Walker Corporation withdrew its proposal for an apartment and retail development on an internationally important wetland at Queensland’s Moreton Bay.

Walker Corporation withdrew its application after Plibersek proposed rejecting the development because of the unacceptable impact it would have on the Ramsar-listed wetland and threatened species such as the critically endangered eastern curlew.

Earlier this week the government also confirmed it would carve up its planned legislation for new nature laws.

Plibersek announced on Tuesday the government would introduce bills for two new agencies – one for environment protection and one for environmental information – in coming weeks.

But a commitment to introduce a suite of laws to address Australia’s extinction crisis, including new national environmental standards against which development proposals would be assessed, has been pushed back to an unspecified date.

Conservationists have called on the government to commit to a timeline for the broader package of reforms and to ensure it would happen in this term of government.

• Russia came under attack from Ukrainian drones Friday night and into Saturday morning, the defence ministry in Moscow said. It claimed there were 50 Ukrainian UAVs detected: 26 over the Belgorod region, 10 over Bryansk, eight over Kursk; two over the Tula region and one each over the Smolensk, Ryazan, Kaluga and Moscow regions.

• Various reports suggested Ukraine mounted a wave of attacks on Russian electrical and petrochemical facilities. One of the attacks left an oil facility burning in Kardymovo – about 100km from the Ukrainian border inside Russia’s Smolensk oblast, the region’s governor said on Saturday morning.

• Russian officials said Ukrainian drones also attacked an electrical substation in Bryansk oblast, about 50km inside Russia. Unconfirmed videos and pictures online showed a large fire. In line with Moscow’s usual information tactics, the ministry claimed all the drones were shot down, while local officials said any damage was only done by falling debris from the intercepted UAVs. There was no independent confirmation.

• Ukraine said it shot down a Russian Tu-22M3 strategic bomber from a distance of 308km (191 miles) after it took part in a long-range airstrike that killed eight people including two children in Dnipro. “I can only say the plane was hit at a distance of 308km, quite far away,” said Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s military spy agency, the GUR.

• An intelligence source told Reuters the plane was hit with a modified S-200 Soviet-era long-range surface-to-air missile system. Unconfirmed social media footage showed a warplane with its tail on fire spiralling towards the ground. The Russian defence ministry confirmed the crash in Russia’s southern Stavropol region but claimed it appeared to have been caused by a technical malfunction. Four aircrew ejected with one dead, two rescued and another missing, the Russian regional governor said.

• Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, visited the site of the strike in Dnipro and again called on Ukraine’s allies to rush in more air defences. Zelenskiy said Russian missiles also struck the Black Sea port of Pivdennyi in the southern Odesa region on Friday afternoon, destroying grain storage facilities and the food inside.

• In the US, the House of Representatives has pushed ahead through procedural hurdles towards passing a foreign aid package that includes $61bn for Ukraine, Joanna Walters writes. The House is expected to vote on Saturday on the legislation. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic party leader in the Senate, has told senators to be prepared to return this weekend if the package passes the House and goes back to the Senate. If passed by the Senate, it must be signed into law by president Joe Biden – after which the US would ship arms to Ukraine “right away”, the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, told reporters on Friday.

• More than half of an international £900m military fund for Ukraine run by the British Ministry of Defence has not been used because of bureaucratic delays in handing out contracts, Daniel Boffey reports. Critics claim slow provision of weapons to the frontline by the International Fund for Ukraine, with just £404m spent and ministers admitting some of the equipment is not expected to reach Ukraine until spring next year.

• The fund was set up in August 2022 and was designed to be “flexible” and “low-bureaucracy”. Delays are said by MoD officials to have been caused by a need to assess each of the huge number of defence companies that have tendered for contracts. An MoD spokesperson said: “Thousands of responses have been received from industry to International Fund for Ukraine requirements, each of which have had to be individually reviewed. We make no excuses for having made sure this was done properly and in a way that most effectively helps Ukraine.”