NewzIntel.com

Category: Australia

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Consultation paper – ATO Vulnerability Framework

    Source: New places to play in Gungahlin

    Provide your feedback

    We are seeking your feedback on the draft ATO Vulnerability Framework (the Framework).

    If you are experiencing vulnerability and need support now, visit our Personal crisis support page for more information.

    To submit your feedback:

    ATO Vulnerability Framework

    Use the links below to view the draft Framework:

    Easy Read version

    Why your feedback matters

    Your feedback will help ensure the Framework is inclusive, practical, and meaningful in real-world situations. Public consultation will help us to:

    • understand different experiences and perspectives, including lived experience
    • identify any gaps or unclear areas
    • build trust by ensuring transparency and community input
    • strengthen the clarity, relevance and accessibility of the Framework.

    We welcome feedback from individuals, advocates, professionals, and organisations that support people who may be affected by vulnerability in any form.

    We encourage you to share this consultation with others, particularly those with lived experience of vulnerability or those who work with, or support people experiencing vulnerability.

    What is the ATO Vulnerability Framework?

    We have developed the Framework so we can better support people experiencing vulnerability when they interact with the tax system. The Framework sets out our commitment to supporting people experiencing vulnerability while carrying out our role of collecting tax to help fund essential services for the Australian community.

    The Framework is founded on the commitments made in Our Charter and outlines 6 guiding principles, 4 core focus areas, and a clear approach to how we engage with the community. These elements are designed to help shape the way we develop policies, processes and staff capability, supporting more inclusive and consistent interactions with the community.

    The Framework provides transparency about our role and what we can and can’t do. While we may not be able to change a tax or superannuation obligation under the law, we can:

    • listen and act with empathy
    • communicate clearly
    • act with compassion
    • connect people with the right support.

    The Framework does not set out specific actions or implementation plans. Instead, it guides our approach for designing and delivering services in the future. It is a key part of our broader commitment to improve how we support people experiencing vulnerability, not just in principle, but in practice. We are also implementing practical initiatives that reflect the Framework’s values and will help bring them to life.

    Consultation questions

    You are not required to answer the consultation questions in your submission, but they are provided to help guide your feedback. You can choose to respond to any or all of them.

    1. How clearly does the Framework explain our commitment to supporting people experiencing vulnerability? What aspects are most clear or meaningful to you? Are there areas that could be improved?
    2. Is the language in the Framework clear, respectful, and easy to understand? Let us know if there are words or sections that could be clearer.
    3. How well does the Framework explain what vulnerability means and how it may affect people’s experience with the ATO? Do you think the definition of vulnerability is clear and inclusive? What, if anything, should be added or clarified?
    4. How clearly does the Framework explain our role, in supporting people experiencing vulnerability, including what we can and can’t do? Is there anything about our role that could be explained more clearly?
    5. Do the guiding principles, for example, empathy, fairness, and inclusion, feel appropriate and meaningful? What do these principles mean to you in the context of people experiencing vulnerability engaging with the ATO?
    6. Is there anything missing that would make the Framework more useful or complete?
    7. Would you use the Framework for yourself or in your work, or share it with others? If so, how might you use it? For example, as a taxpayer, practitioner, or advocate.
    8. Is there anything else you would like us to consider before the Framework is finalised?

    What happens next?

    After the consultation closes, we will:

    • review feedback received
    • incorporate relevant insights into a final version of the Framework
    • publish the Framework based on this consultation
    • where appropriate, we will send you a summary of how your feedback was considered
    • consider additional ideas for future planning and implementation.

    We thank you for taking the time to share your insights and contribute to shaping a more inclusive and transparent approach to supporting people experiencing vulnerability.

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: After weeks of confusion and chaos, Tasmania heads back to the polls on July 19

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hortle, Deputy Director, Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania

    The Tasmanian government has called a state election for July 19, the fourth in a little over seven years.

    Following days of high drama, Governor Barbara Baker finally granted Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s election request, saying there was no other course of action to break the deadlock gripping Tasmanian politics:

    I make this grant because I am satisfied there is no real possibility that an alternative government can be formed.

    The ballot will be the second state election in just 16 months.

    So how did we get here? And what happens next?

    Dark political mofo

    The Dark Mofo festival kicked off last week, bringing to Hobart its usual mix of weird, dark, and violent modern art. But in the halls of Tasmanian parliament, a similarly macabre and vicious spectacle was playing out.

    I have written a more detailed analysis of events previously, but here’s the quick version.

    On June 3, the Labor opposition moved a motion of no confidence in Rockliff. After two days of acrimonious parliamentary debate, the motion passed on the casting vote of the speaker.

    An election looked inevitable because Rockliff refused to step aside and Opposition Leader Dean Winter ruled out doing a deal with the Greens to govern in minority.

    Parliament returned briefly to pass emergency supply bills, which were needed after the no confidence motion derailed the recent state budget.

    Shortly afterwards, Rockliff asked the governor to dissolve parliament and call an election. This request has now been granted after a few days of deliberation.

    How did it come to this?

    It’s been a rocky road for the Liberal government since the
    last state election in March 2024. Holding only 14 of the House of Assembly’s 35 seats, it has governed in minority thanks to confidence and supply deals with five crossbenchers.

    This tenuous arrangement was under constant pressure. Labor and the crossbench installed Michelle O’Byrne as speaker, and in the second half of 2024 passed three pieces of legislation against the government’s will.

    In August 2024, the implosion of the Jacqui Lambie Network and the forced resignation of Michael Ferguson as deputy premier and treasurer added further complications.

    Against this backdrop, the government has faced a rapidly
    deteriorating fiscal situation    . This is partly the legacy of the COVID pandemic, compounded by recent global uncertainty. However, as economist Saul Eslake notes, the roots of the problem can be found in the policy choices made by previous state Liberal governments.

    Policy setbacks

    Even considering the challenging context, the government has
    done itself few favours. The ongoing project to replace the ageing Spirit of Tasmania ferries has been mired in cost blowouts and poor planning.

    An abrupt about-face on nation-leading gambling reforms, tentative explorations of privatising state assets – since abandoned – and radical changes to the planning system also caused concern.

    And of course, there is the saga over the highly contentious $945 million stadium to support a Tassie team in the AFL.

    Most importantly, though, there has been little progress on the deep structural reforms needed to address the state’s poor health and education outcomes, housing crisis, cost-of-living challenges, and worsening budget situation.

    On the positive side, the government points to achievements recruiting much-needed frontline healthcare workers, increasing the supply of social and affordable housing, and a historically low unemployment rate.

    What happens now?

    The campaign will be a political version of a classic children’s party game: pin the blame on the party.

    Liberal and Labor will both claim the early election is the fault of the other, while the debate over the stadium will likely continue to distract from Tasmania’s other, far more important challenges.

    The election result is hard to predict. In the past, Tasmanians
    have punished minority governments at elections, and in the latest available polling, support for the Liberal Party was at a 16-year low of 29%.

    But the circumstances of this election mean we can’t rely too much on previous trends. The drop in Liberal support is partly driven by northern Tasmanians’ dislike of the Hobart stadium. However, that won’t necessarily help Labor, because they also remain committed to the project.

    Labor will be energised by the federal party’s recent victory. But the most recent polling shows the state branch is barely more popular than the Liberals. Winter lags Rockliff as preferred premier 44%-32%, with a high “never heard of” rating of 24%.

    The Greens could benefit from being the only notable party opposed to the stadium, but will be fighting relentless Labor and Liberal warnings about the perils of forming another minority government.

    None of this points to the July 19 election producing a stable majority government. In fact, there is a strong likelihood the Tasmanian electorate – grumpy about being forced to the polls in mid-winter – will punish both major parties.

    This could result in an even larger and more diverse crossbench, requiring deft and collaborative negotiations to stitch together the numbers to form government.

    While the theatre of the campaign plays out, the ambitious structural reforms that Tasmania desperately needs seem further away than ever.

    The drama is worthy of Dark Mofo, but Tasmanians are already tired of the performance.

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

    – ref. After weeks of confusion and chaos, Tasmania heads back to the polls on July 19 – https://theconversation.com/after-weeks-of-confusion-and-chaos-tasmania-heads-back-to-the-polls-on-july-19-258597

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI China: Depay equals scoring record as Dutch thrash Malta

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Memphis Depay on Tuesday night netted twice for the Netherlands in the 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifier against Malta (8-0) in Groningen and equaled Robin van Persie as Dutch all-time top scorer.

    The 31-year-old opened the scoring against Malta with a penalty in the 9th minute and in the 16th minute he smashed home the second goal. With his 49th and 50th goal for his country, he equaled all-time top scorer Robin van Persie.

    Depay debuted for the Netherlands against Türkiye (2-0 win) in October 2013 and produced his first goal at the 2014 World Cup against Australia (3-2 win). His record year was 2021 with 17 goals for his country.

    The other goals were scored by captain Virgil van Dijk, Xavi Simons, Donyell Malen (twice), Noa Lang and Micky van de Ven.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: 201 ways to say ‘fuck’: what 1.7 billion words of online text shows about how the world swears

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Martin Schweinberger, Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, The University of Queensland

    Our brains swear for good reasons: to vent, cope, boost our grit and feel closer to those around us. Swear words can act as social glue and play meaningful roles in how people communicate, connect and express themselves – both in person, and online.

    In our new research published in Lingua, we analysed more than 1.7 billion words of online language across 20 English-speaking regions. We identified 597 different swear word forms – from standard words, to creative spellings like “4rseholes”, to acronyms like “wtf”.

    The findings challenge a familiar stereotype. Australians – often thought of as prolific swearers – are actually outdone by Americans and Brits, both in how often they swear, and in how many users swear online.

    Facts and figures

    Our study focused on publicly available web data (such as news articles, organisational websites, government or institutional publications, and blogs – but excluding social media and private messaging). We found vulgar words made up 0.036% of all words in the dataset from the United States, followed by 0.025% in the British data and 0.022% in the Australian data.

    Although vulgar language is relatively rare in terms of overall word frequency, it was used by a significant number of individuals.

    Between 12% and 13.3% of Americans, around 10% of Brits, and 9.4% of Australians used at least one vulgar word in their data. Overall, the most frequent vulgar word was “fuck” – with all its variants, it amounted to a stunning 201 different forms.

    We focused on online language that didn’t include social media, because large-scale comparisons need robust, purpose-built datasets. In our case, we used the Global Web-Based English (GloWbE) corpus, which was specifically designed to compare how English is used across different regions online.

    So how much were our findings influenced by the online data we used?

    Telling results come from research happening at the same time as ours. One study analysed the use of “fuck” in social networks on X, examining how network size and strength influence swearing in the UK, US and Australia.

    It used data from 5,660 networks with more than 435,000 users and 7.8 billion words and found what we did. Americans use “fuck” most frequently, while Australians use it the least, but with the most creative spelling variations (some comfort for anyone feeling let down by our online swearing stats).

    Teasing apart cultural differences

    Americans hold relatively conservative attitudes toward public morality, and their high swearing rates are surprising. The cultural contradiction may reflect the country’s strong individualistic culture. Americans often value personal expression – especially in private or anonymous settings like the internet.

    Meanwhile, public displays of swearing are often frowned upon in the US. This is partly due to the lingering influence of religious norms, which frame swearing – particularly religious-based profanity – as a violation of moral decency.

    Significantly, the only religious-based swear word in our dataset, “damn”, was used most frequently by Americans.

    Research suggests swearing is more acceptable in Australian public discourse. Certainly, Australia’s public airing of swear words often takes visitors by surprise. The long-running road safety slogan “If you drink, then drive, you’re a bloody idiot” is striking – such language is rare in official messaging elsewhere.

    Australians may be comfortable swearing in person, but our findings indicate they dial it back online – surprising for a nation so fond of its vernacular.

    In terms of preferences for specific forms of vulgarity, Americans showed a strong preference for variations of “ass(hole)”, the Irish favored “feck”, the British preferred “cunt”, and Pakistanis leaned toward “butt(hole)”.

    The only statistically significant aversion we found was among Americans, who tended to avoid the word “bloody” (folk wisdom claims the word is blasphemous).

    Being fluent in swearing

    People from countries where English is the dominant language – such as the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland – tend to swear more frequently and with more lexical variety than people in regions where English is less dominant like India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Ghana or the Philippines. This pattern holds for both frequency and creativity in swearing.

    But Singapore ranked fourth in terms of frequency of swearing in our study, just behind Australia and ahead of New Zealand, Ireland and Canada. English in Singapore is increasingly seen not as a second language, but as a native language, and as a tool for identity, belonging and creativity. Young Singaporeans use social swearing to push back against authority, especially given the government’s strict rules on public language.

    One possible reason we saw less swearing among non-native English speakers is that it is rarely taught. Despite its frequency and social utility, swearing – alongside humour and informal speech – is often left out of language education.

    Cursing comes naturally

    Cultural, social and technological shifts are reshaping linguistic norms, blurring the already blurry lines between informal and formal, private and public language. Just consider the Aussie contributions to the July Oxford English Dictionary updates: expressions like “to strain the potatoes” (to urinate), “no wuckers” and “no wucking furries” (from “no fucking worries”).

    Swearing and vulgarity aren’t just crass or abusive. While they can be used harmfully, research consistently shows they serve important communicative functions – colourful language builds rapport, expresses humour and emotion, signals solidarity and eases tension.

    It’s clear that swearing isn’t just a bad habit that can be easily kicked, like nail-biting or smoking indoors. Besides, history shows that telling people not to swear is one of the best ways to keep swearing alive and well.

    Martin Schweinberger has received funding from from the Centre for Digital Cultures and Society and the School of Languages and Cultures at the University of Queensland. He is currently funded by the Language Data Commons of Australia, which has received investment from the Australian Research Data Commons, funded by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.

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

    – ref. 201 ways to say ‘fuck’: what 1.7 billion words of online text shows about how the world swears – https://theconversation.com/201-ways-to-say-fuck-what-1-7-billion-words-of-online-text-shows-about-how-the-world-swears-257815

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Allianz’ proposed acquisition of RAA Insurance not opposed

    Source: Australian Ministers for Regional Development

    The ACCC will not oppose Allianz Australia Insurance Limited’s proposed acquisition of the Royal Automobile Association of South Australia’s personal insurance business (RAAI).

    Allianz and RAAI both supply home and contents insurance and motor insurance products in South Australia.

    “Our investigation focused on the closeness of competition between RAAI and Allianz and the extent to which other insurers are competing effectively to supply insurance to South Australians,” ACCC Commissioner Dr Philip Williams said.

    “We also considered how competitive RAAI is now and is likely to be in the future without being acquired by Allianz. The likely impact of the acquisition on insurance prices, coverage and service offerings were all carefully considered.”

    The ACCC found that other suppliers will continue to compete with, and constrain, a merged Allianz and RAAI after the acquisition, making the transaction unlikely to substantially lessen competition.

    “As well as being the two largest insurers in Australia, Suncorp and IAG also have a significant presence in South Australia. As such, both are likely to compete effectively against Allianz in South Australia even after it has purchased RAAI,” Dr Williams said.

    “Mid-tier insurers Auto & General (Budget Direct) and Youi are also growing their market share nationally and will continue to compete on price in South Australia.”

    “While RAAI has a strong brand reputation associated with its motoring club and membership offering, we found that competition in relation to price and coverage in South Australia is being driven predominantly by other insurers, including Suncorp through its AAMI brand, IAG, Auto & General and Youi,” Dr Williams said.

    The ACCC also considered how the growing challenges facing the insurance industry are affecting RAAI, with a particular focus on the increasing numbers of extreme weather events and rising reinsurance and regulatory costs.

    The ACCC’s investigation found evidence that RAAI is facing specific challenges meaning that it is likely to be less competitive than it has been in recent years.

    The ACCC also considered the impact of the proposed acquisition on markets for the acquisition of smash repair services, windscreen repair and replacement services, and building repair services in South Australia.

    The ACCC found that the proposed acquisition is unlikely to substantially lessen competition in these markets as Allianz is unlikely to have the ability to diminish prices or supply terms 2 after the acquisition due to its position in the market relative to other insurers and acquirers of these services.

    The ACCC will also shortly be considering IAG’s proposed acquisition of RAC Insurance from RAC WA. This decision in relation to Allianz and RAAI should not be treated as being indicative of the ACCC’s decision for that transaction. The competitive dynamics and issues in each transaction are unique and the ACCC is considering each transaction individually.

    Further information can be found on the ACCC’s public register: Allianz Australia Limited – RAA Insurance Holdings Limited.

    Background

    Allianz Group is a global insurance service provider that offers a range of insurance products to customers in Australia. Allianz distributes personal insurance products (including home and contents insurance and motor insurance) directly to customers under the Allianz and TIO brands.

    Allianz also underwrites insurance products and distributes it through agreements with third party brands, including Westpac, BankSA, St George Bank, HSBC, NAB, Aussie, Newcastle Permanent, RAMS, and Catholic Church Insurance.

    The Royal Automobile Association of South Australia (RAA) is a South Australian based, member-owned organisation that offers roadside assistance products, personal insurance products, and other ancillary services to its members.

    RAAI is a subsidiary of RAA and underwrites home and contents insurance and motor insurance products and distributes them directly through the RAA network via call centres, physical branches (all of which are in South Australia), and the RAA website.

    RAAI’s insurance products are only available in South Australia. The proposed acquisition does not include RAA’s membership-based business, which includes its roadside assistance business.

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Australia – Household spending subdued in May, but consumers show signs of life with restaurant, recreation spending uplift – CBA

    Source: Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA)

    Households using money saved from energy rebates, lower petrol prices, and interest rate cuts to treat themselves.

    https://youtu.be/obtoCYYhE4Q?si=aLwclsdKp-L9zzA1

    The CommBank Household Spending Insights (HSI) Index rose just 0.5 per cent in May. However signs are emerging that consumers are starting to loosen the purse strings for small luxuries thanks to lower costs in key spending areas like petrol and electricity bills. (ref. https://www.commbankresearch.com.au/apex/researcharticleviewv2?id=a0NDo000000wSW3 )

    Despite overall spending softness in the second quarter so far, Hospitality and Recreation now rank at the top of annual spending categories when compared to May last year, as households splashed out on restaurants, food delivery, cinemas and online travel, indicating continued divergence in spending tr

    MIL OSI – Submitted News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Jayco in Court over ‘off road’ caravan advertisements

    Source: Australian Ministers for Regional Development

    The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd (Jayco), Australia’s largest caravan and recreational vehicle manufacturer, for making allegedly misleading representations when advertising certain models of its RVs in ‘off road’ conditions.

    The ACCC alleges that since January 2020, Jayco engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations to consumers by representing that its Outback, All Terrain and CrossTrak RVs were designed for use off-road and/or on four-wheel drive (4WD) only tracks when, in fact, they are not.

    “We allege Jayco misled consumers by advertising the RVs in terrain in which they were not designed to be used and were not covered by its warranty,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.

    “When a product is depicted in advertisements in a particular setting, or claims are made about it, consumers have a right to expect such images and words reflect the intended use of the product.”

    The ACCC alleges Jayco’s advertising depicted the RVs in various off-road conditions, including on unsealed or rocky roads with significant rutting or undulations, sand or beaches, water crossings, 4WD only tracks or specified locations that are only accessible by 4WD only tracks.

    In fact, the ACCC alleges the RVs were not designed for use off-road, on 4WD only tracks, or in the off-road conditions shown in its advertisements. In particular, as described in Jayco’s warranty, the RVs were not designed for use or towing on 4WD only tracks, terrain with hard impacts, heavy landings or rutted roads or tracks.

    The ACCC also alleges that Jayco did not disclose, or adequately disclose, in its promotional materials that the relevant RVs were not designed for use off-road and/or on 4WD only tracks, and that the warranty for the relevant RVs would not cover such use.

    Separately, the ACCC alleges Jayco made misrepresentations that its ‘All Terrain’ RVs were designed for use on all types of terrain, when in fact the All Terrain RV was not designed for use on terrain with hard impacts, heavy landings, rutted roads, tight undulating tracks or roads or 4WD only tracks, and therefore was not designed for use on all types of terrain.

    The ACCC’s case concerns Jayco’s promotion of its RVs on its own website, social media profiles, brochures, and point of sale advertising, including at 4WD and trade shows.

    Example of Jayco advertising – Instagram post depicting an Outback RV being towed by a 4WD vehicle through “Kinkuna National Park”, which is only accessible by 4WD vehicles

    Jayco Facebook post and embedded video, depicting a CrossTrak RV being towed behind a 4WD vehicle through a range of off-road conditions including water crossings.

    In addition to the images described above, Jayco also used references to “4WD” or “off-road” in its advertisements, as well as statements such as:

    • “purpose-built off-road hybrid RV”;
    • “built with off-road travel at the forefront”;
    • “can tackle just about any terrain”;
    • “designed specifically for off-road adventures”;
    • “our toughest off-roader, purpose-built to tackle the tough Australian terrain”;
    • “purposely made to take the road less travelled”; and
    • “All Terrain”.

    “We are concerned that consumers were deprived of the ability to make informed purchasing decisions which might have led them to buy a different RV that was more suitable for their needs,” Mr Keogh said.

    “RVs are a significant purchase for consumers, and as a result of Jayco’s ads, consumers may have paid a premium over and above the cost of other standard model RVs based on the alleged misrepresentation that they could be used ‘off road’.”

    The ACCC is seeking declarations, penalties, injunctions, compliance and publication orders, and costs.

    Background

    Jayco is the largest manufacturer of RVs in Australia and sells its vehicles through 29 dealerships across Australia. It promotes and supplies numerous RVs to Australian consumers and typically groups them in ranges. During the relevant period, these included Jayco’s ‘Outback’ and ‘Adventure’ ranges.

    The Adventure range included the CrossTrak and All Terrain models, and the Outback range comprised standard model RVs that had been modified with an “Outback upgrade” Jayco promotes the upgrade as providing higher ground clearance, added strength, and upgraded suspension and wheels. The Outback upgrade is an additional cost above a standard model RV.

    The Outback, CrossTrak and All Terrain RVs ranged in price from approximately $19,000 to $113,000 during the relevant period, depending on the model and options.

    In May 2021, Jayco was ordered to pay a $75,000 penalty for making a false or misleading representation to a consumer about their consumer guarantee rights, after the Court dismissed other allegations in a case brought by the ACCC in November 2017.

    In July 2022, following a survey of consumers and suppliers, the ACCC published the New caravan retailing report, which highlighted some areas of concern the ACCC had identified in the caravans industry.

    Concise statement 

    This document contains the ACCC’s initiating court document in relation to this matter. We will not be uploading further documents in the event these initial documents are subsequently amended.

    Concise Statement ACCC vs Jayco ( PDF 8.27 MB )

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Greater Bendigo community thanked for shaping the proposed Council Plan 2025-2029 and Annual Budget

    Source: New South Wales Ministerial News

    Council extends its sincere thanks to the local community for their valuable input on two key milestone documents, the proposed Council Plan Mir wimbul  2025–2029 and the Budget 2025/2026.

    Shaped by community priorities through extensive public engagement, these documents will be considered for adoption at the next Council Meeting on Monday June 16, starting at 6pm.

    For the first time, the proposed Council Plan and Budget have been developed and planned together, ensuring a strong alignment between strategic goals and the resources required to achieve them.

    Mayor Cr Andrea Metcalf said this combined approach marked a significant step forward in addressing both current and future community needs.

    “Developing the proposed Council Plan and Budget at the same time has ensured that our strategic goals are directly supported by the projects and initiatives we’re funding,” Cr Metcalf said.

    “The proposed Council Plan sets our direction for the next four years and includes the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan. We’re focused on creating a welcoming community and a healthy environment that supports people to thrive. It reinforces the City’s commitment to improving health outcomes in partnership with local health organisations.”

    The proposed Budget 2025/2026 outlines key priorities for the coming year, supported by an annual action plan to ensure efficient and sustainable delivery of services.

    Cr Metcalf acknowledged the extensive community engagement that helped to shape both documents.

    “These milestone plans would not have been possible without the input of hundreds of community members, partner organisations, and Traditional Owner organisations. Councillors sincerely thank everyone who contributed their time, ideas, and experiences.”

    The planning process included:

    • A wide number of community focus groups and meetings with Traditional Owner organisations, key partners, local groups, and businesses
    • Two community-wide surveys with over 500 responses
    • A 42-person deliberative community panel held over a weekend in March that was selected from over 200 registrants, representing diverse genders, abilities, and cultural backgrounds, including First Nations community members

    “The community deliberative panel met over three days to provide guidance to Councillors, helping shape ideas that reflect the community’s voice and the Council Plan’s vision. Based on this and earlier community feedback, people told us they want Greater Bendigo to be responsible, healthy, thriving and welcoming,” Cr Metcalf said.

    “Community members recognise that Greater Bendigo is experiencing both the benefits and challenges of growth. We’re working hard to advocate for more housing and better facilities to support our expanding population.

    “Top priorities identified through community engagement include roads, public and active transport, waste management, and parks and trails. The community understands the importance of creating healthy, liveable places and spaces.”

    In addition to the Council Plan and Budget, a proposed Rating and Revenue Plan 2025-2029 and proposed Financial Plan 2025-2035 will also be considered for adoption at the June 16 meeting.

    The Revenue and Rating Plan 2025/2029 explains how the City will raise funds to pay for services, facilities and infrastructure. This includes finding the most appropriate and affordable rates approach for Greater Bendigo’s residents and businesses. In response to the introduction of the Emergency Services Volunteer Fund in July, the City’s 2025/2026 Budget proposes to reduce the rate in the dollar for the farm rate and not increase waste charges for all ratepayers in the new financial year.

    The Financial Plan sets out how the City plans to fund the delivery of services to the community in an efficient and sustainable way. The City uses a financial model to forecast and monitor a 10-year financially sustainable projection of how it plans to fund the actions in the Council Plan. 

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Sudan – As a measles outbreak spreads in Darfur, children are in urgent need of immunisation – MSF

    Source: Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF

    Port Sudan, Sudan, 12 June 2025 – For a year now, Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) teams in Darfur have been witnessing outbreaks of measles in the four Darfur states we currently work in. While massive vaccination campaigns are finally ongoing in several locations across the region, MSF insists on the need to increase efforts to catch up on the immunisation of children who have never been vaccinated.

    The first surge of measles cases observed and treated by MSF were in June 2024 in Rokero, a city in the north of the Jebel Marra Mountains in Central Darfur, where MSF teams have been running the local Ministry of Health (MoH) hospital without interruption since 2020. At the start of 2025, cases were also reported in East Jebel Marra, South Darfur and in Forbrenga, West Darfur. More recently, new surges are also being observed in Zalengei, Sortony and in Tine, East Chad – all places where MSF runs activities.

    From June 2024 until the end of May 2025, more than 9,950 patients were treated for measles in health facilities run or supported by MSF in the region. Around 2,700 were complicated cases requiring hospitalisation, and 35 deaths were recorded. To manage the influx of patients, we had to expand our paediatric beds capacity in three hospitals.  

    One of the root causes of this situation is the region’s already low immunisation coverage. “In Forbrenga, 30% of the measles patients we are receiving are above the age of five years and only 5% of them are vaccinated. This suggests that the lack of vaccination dates back further than the recent conflict,” explains Sue Bucknell, MSF’s Deputy Head of mission in West Darfur.

    “The ongoing conflict is also contributing to this outbreak, constraining the capacities of medical actors to both prevent and respond to outbreaks of contagious diseases,” adds Dr Cecilia Greco, MSF Medical coordinator for Central Darfur. “Mass population displacement has made the illness spread even faster across the region, further complicating the situation.”  

    Since the war broke out, constant administrative impediments and regular blockades of key supply roads have caused vaccine shortages throughout Darfur. This led to disruption in routine immunisation programmes in several locations, sometimes for months. In Sortony, for example, an internally displaced people (IDP) camp of North Darfur hosting more than 55,000 people, vaccination totally stopped from May 2024 to February 2025.

    These constraints and shortages have also limited the medical actors’ capacity to roll out proper response campaigns. Last year, MSF carried out several vaccination campaigns such as in November 2024 in North Jebel Marra where 9,600 children were vaccinated. However, due to limited vaccine supplies, MSF teams were forced to reduce the target and to exclude children over five, despite clear needs. This inevitably reduced the long-term impact of these campaigns. In North Jebel Marra, while the vaccination campaign initially slowed the outbreak, cases began to rise sharply again from February.

    Although mass vaccination campaigns are now happening in different parts of Darfur, negotiations and procedures have been lengthy. After MSF first raised the alarm about the multiple surges it was witnessing, it took months before the Federal MoH in Port Sudan and UNICEF released the needed vaccines from their stocks: finally enabling mass vaccination campaigns to be launched in different areas of Darfur. Last week, 55,800 children from nine months to 15 years old were therefore vaccinated in Forbrenga as part of a campaign led by the MoH and supported by MSF. 93,000 more children are set to receive the vaccine in North Jebel Marra and Sortony by the end of this week, in a similar campaign.

    “Even if they represent a certain achievement, these campaigns should have happened much sooner. Many measles cases and their consequences could have been prevented” says Dr Greco. “And as much as they are needed, such reactive campaigns are only a band-aid to an open wound unless massive efforts are put in place on immunisation and prevention across Darfur, including its most remote areas.”  

    Bucknell highlights the threat of further outbreaks of disease unless such efforts are initiated. “Measles is not the only contagious illness currently present in Darfur with the potential to turn into outbreaks. Over the last 10 days, about 200 suspected cholera cases were brought to MSF-supported health facilities in two different Darfur states. This follows a significant cholera outbreak in Khartoum state and other parts of Sudan,” she says.

    “It is essential that federal and local health authorities, UN agencies and all medical actors on the ground collaborate not only to catch up on the vaccination of all the children left behind by immunisation programmes over the years, but also to enhance their ability to respond quickly and efficiently should any other outbreaks, like cholera, start spreading over Darfur. This includes the capacity to supply vaccines in and across Sudan, without facing the same impediments anymore,” concludes Dr Greco.

    MSF is an international, medical, humanitarian organisation that delivers medical care to people in need, regardless of their origin, religion, or political affiliation. MSF has been working in Haiti for over 30 years, offering general healthcare, trauma care, burn wound care, maternity care, and care for survivors of sexual violence. MSF Australia was established in 1995 and is one of 24 international MSF sections committed to delivering medical humanitarian assistance to people in crisis. In 2022, more than 120 project staff from Australia and New Zealand worked with MSF on assignment overseas. MSF delivers medical care based on need alone and operates independently of government, religion or economic influence and irrespective of race, religion or gender. For more information visit msf.org.au  

    MIL OSI – Submitted News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: New parent visa delivers on ACT commitment

    Source: ACT Party

    ACT Immigration spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar is celebrating the delivery of an ACT coalition commitment in the form of the Parent Boost Visa.

    “The Parent Boost Visa aligns closely with the policy ACT campaigned on in 2023. I’m proud to see our commitment to a renewable, multi-year parent visa come to life, enabling migrants to spend meaningful time with their parents and grandparents.

    “The new visa means skilled migrants can come to New Zealand with confidence they can have their parents around when they welcome a new child, or when they need support during challenges or help with childcare.

    “Ultimately, this visa makes New Zealand a more attractive destination for the talent we need to drive economic growth. A skilled workforce means more productivity, stronger communities, and more prosperity for all New Zealanders.

    “ACT’s 2023 proposal differed slightly in that it would have included an annual fee to fund healthcare costs through a public health fund. The Parent Boost Visa’s alternative, a requirement for comprehensive private health insurance, serves a similar purpose in protecting New Zealand taxpayers.

    “ACT remains open to immigration reforms that attract the world’s brightest while protecting local taxpayers.”

    The Parent Boost Visa opens for applications on 29 September 2025.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: ACT responds to legislation to restrict farm-to-forest conversions

    Source: ACT Party

    Responding to the introduction of legislation to restrict farm-to-forest conversions, ACT Rural Communities spokesperson Mark Cameron says:

    “The Government is moving to address legitimate concerns in rural communities. Forestry is swallowing up productive farmland because the current system is rigged against those who feed the world,” says Mr Cameron.

    “Red tape and distorted incentives make it more profitable to plant pine trees than to run a farm.

    “There is more the Government could do to address the root of the problem. It could start by letting Kiwis offset their emissions overseas. There’s no reason we should be covering our own productive land in carbon farms when planting is cheaper and more efficient in other parts of the world.

    “It’s also time for a wider conversation about whether New Zealand’s Paris climate commitments are worth the cost.

    “Right now, our only options to meet these targets are blanketing the countryside in trees, or driving up costs on fuel, electricity and everyday goods. Neither of those is acceptable. We need to ask whether the pain is worth it.

    “Kiwi farmers are the best in the world at what they do – the freer they are to compete and grow, the better. ACT will keep backing farmers and rural communities.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: ACT MP welcomes changes to anti-stalking bill, calls for urgent action on newer forms of abuse

    Source: ACT Party

    ACT MP Laura McClure is welcoming changes made at select committee to strengthen the proposed anti-stalking law, but says more must be done to protect New Zealanders from modern forms of digital abuse, particularly sexually explicit deepfakes.

    “I’m pleased to see the Government respond to public concern about stalking with more robust and practical legislation,” says McClure.

    “Patterns of abusive behaviour deserve to be recognised by the law, and these changes will help victims seek justice.

    “But we can’t stop here. As technology evolves, so do the tools of harassment and abuse. Sexually explicit AI-generated deepfakes made without consent are a fast-growing threat, especially to young people and women.

    “I have a members’ bill in the ballot that would create a specific offence for the creation and distribution of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake content. This should be adopted as a Government Bill.

    “Deepfakes are harming real people today, and the law is failing to keep up.

    “The same commitment to protecting stalking victims should extend to those targeted by synthetic sexual abuse. We need clear, targeted laws so police can act, courts can prosecute, and victims can get justice.”

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Climate activists dressed as lawyers would sacrifice farmers to the climate gods

    Source: ACT Party

    Responding to legal action from Lawyers for Climate Action NZ, ACT Rural Communities spokesperson Mark Cameron says:

    “This is a courtroom stunt by climate activists dressed as lawyers. They would sacrifice our rural lifeblood at the altar of climate ideology.

    “The clear goal of this challenge is to place more restrictions on Kiwi farmers. It’s the same tired approach we saw from Labour and the Greens.

    “Shutting farms down or burying them in regulation won’t save the climate. It will just shift food production offshore, cost us jobs, and make food more expensive.

    “New Zealand farmers are the most emissions-efficient food producers on the planet. We need to back them, which is what ACT is doing in government.

    “This government is right to back off from costly, unworkable policies that punish rural New Zealand. The idea that New Zealand – responsible for just 0.17% of global emissions – should wreck its economy to impress international activists is absurd.

    “ACT is committed to climate policies that are practical, not performative. We will back Kiwi innovation, not regulation for its own sake. We’ll support farmers, not sue them. We know that when farmers do well, all New Zealanders are better off.”

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Speech: Hon Andrew Hoggard to Federated Farmers at Fieldays

    Source: ACT Party

    ACT MP Hon Andrew Hoggard
    Federated Farmers Rural Advocacy Hub Speaking Engagement     
    Wednesday 11 June, 11:30 am 

    Good morning, everyone. 

    It’s great to be back, and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. 

    I’d like to start by acknowledging the significant effort that’s gone into organising this year’s Fieldays Rural Advocacy Hub. These events don’t happen without a lot of hard work behind the scenes, and it shows. 

    I also want to acknowledge Federated Farmers and the many other farmer-led organisations who work tirelessly to support and advocate for the sector. 

    As a dairy farmer and a former President of Federated Farmers, I know firsthand how important your work is. Whether it’s in the regions or on the national stage, you give voice to rural communities, bring practical solutions to the table, and stand up for the interests of farmers and growers across New Zealand. 

    This Government is firmly committed to backing you—by reducing costs, cutting unnecessary red tape, and strengthening frontline support. 

    When I spoke at Fieldays last year, interest rates were a massive challenge for rural New Zealand. Make no mistake, that was Wellington’s fault. It was the hangover from a Labour-led pandemic response that pumped out easy money without a productivity boost to match.

    Now we’ve reined in waste, got inflation back to the target range, and farmers are finally seeing real interest rates relief. We need to do more to cut the waste in Wellington, because the less resource the Government sucks up, the more is left over for people like you out in the real world trying to grow things. 

    Over the past year, we’ve made real progress on red tape. We’ve started delivering on our promise to fix the resource management system and reduce the regulatory burden. 

    Amending intensive winter grazing and stock exclusion rules. Pausing the rollout of freshwater farm plans while we make them more practical and affordable, and halting the identification of new Significant Natural Areas. 

    Right now, we’re consulting on a package of proposals aimed at streamlining or removing regulations that are holding the primary sector back. 

    Most critically, we are consulting on changes to the NPS Freshwater 2020. There are several options being put forward. Now, if I remove my Minister hat and put on my ACT Party hat, we need to be bold. By that I mean Te Mana o te Wai needs to go. Worrying about the Paris Accord, whilst still a concern, is a sideshow compared to the hard calls we need to make with regards to RMA reform and the NPS Freshwater.

    Make no mistake, as a Party we have no interest in taxing the most carbon efficient farmers in the world, having methane targets far in excess of what is needed to play our part, sending billions offshore to be carbon neutral, or turning the lights off in homes or businesses through misguided energy policies.

    But if you ask me what area of policy scares me the most for the future of New Zealand farming, it is resource management and freshwater policy.

    Te Mana o te Wai has caused confusion amongst councils, and I see that if left in place its current trajectory will likely lead towards co-governance for regional councils, not just in policy but consenting as well, and policies that are based on vague spiritual concepts, not clear and simple water science balanced with societal needs.

    This debate will undoubtedly be noisy, but farming groups need to advocate strongly for clear unambiguous language in the NPS, individual farmers need to submit on what they are seeing and the stress this concept has caused many of them with regards to consenting.

    At the Treaty Principles Bill second reading debate many coalition party MPs stated that the Bill was too general, too broad-brushed, and that we should just focus on ensuring that we don’t have unclear language and vague concepts in future bills and policies. Well I would suggest that this NPS Freshwater is a good test for those statements. You will see plenty of MPs here for the next few days playing farmer dress up, make sure you let them know you expect them to keep their word.

    Now, while I’m being a staunch ACT MP I also want to give a shout out to the Regulatory Standards Bill, for many of you undoubtedly are thinking, why should I care about something that sounds that boring.

    Real simple. If this Bill had been in place during my Feds presidency it would have made the job so much easier, as it would have highlighted some of the more impractical and stupid regulations that were dreamed up. Even if it didn’t make the politicians think twice, at least the system would have shone a spotlight on the issues. We are so lucky that Bernadette Hunt got on the Hosking show and was able to show up some of the more daft parts of the winter grazing regs and they got changed within days, but they shouldn’t have got that far. That’s what the Regulatory Standards Bill will hopefully show up.

    But also, government doesn’t just take away your hard-earned dollars through its fiscal policies. It also can take away your property rights through its regulatory policies, so this Bill will ensure that if those property rights are taken away then compensation should be forthcoming. This whole concept has complete distaste from the Left, and some lukewarm reception from everyone else but ACT. So, if more protection for property rights is something you want to see, make sure you put your case forward for it.

    Okay, back to being a Minister, if I can just highlight some of the other Government work that is going on that is relevant for farming.

    In the health and safety space, we’ve got Brooke van Velden leading reforms to get rid of over compliance, reduce paperwork, and make WorkSafe helpful, not harmful. I’m especially pleased about her work to protect landowners from liability when they allow recreational activities like horse trekking, hunting, or hiking on their land. It’s about a shift from fear to freedom, opening up land for maximum enjoyment and enhancing the Kiwi way of life. 

    We’re also keen to empower farmers on the conservation front. I believe farmers are natural environmentalists. We live off the land, so we have every incentive to care for it. Many of us work to maintain stands of native bush or wetland on our land. For too long, the approach has been to punish this work, with councils looking at your land and saying, “that looks pretty, in fact that natural area looks ‘significant’ and you’re going to lose your property rights over that.” It’s all stick and no carrot. I think farmers deserve real credit for their contributions to biodiversity, and I’ll have more to say about that at the Beef + Lamb stall tomorrow.

    In this year’s Budget, we announced a 20% funding increase to tackle the spread of wilding pines—a major win for our landscapes and productive land. 

    Another important change in this year’s Budget is Investment Boost—a major new tax incentive to encourage business investment, support economic growth, and lift wages. 

    If you’re a farmer, tradie, manufacturer, or run any business, this matters to you. 

    When you invest in new equipment, machinery, tools, vehicles, or technology—you’ll now be able to deduct 20% of that cost immediately from your taxable income. 

    It’s a straightforward way to help reduce your tax bill and support decisions that lift productivity and grow your business. 

    To put it simply, we’re backing your success. 

    We want to see a thriving primary sector that’s not weighed down by complexity, but supported to innovate, grow, and lead. 

    I want to thank Federated Farmers, and many of you here, for the constructive role you’ve played in helping shape these changes. Your feedback is vital to making sure the final rules are workable, sensible, and fit for purpose. 

    Thank you again for the chance to be here, and for everything you do to keep this sector moving forward.

    All the best for a successful and enjoyable Fieldays. 

    Thank you.  

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Call for information – Criminal damage – Wadeye

    Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

    Police are calling for information after three separate incidents occurred in Wadeye on Sunday.

    Around 3:50pm, the Joint Emergency Services Communication Centre received reports that a male entered the Wadeye clinic yard and allegedly used a rock to smash the windows and side mirrors to two government vehicles before fleeing fled the scene.

    The incident resulted in approximately $20,000 worth of damage.

    Police attended and reviewed CCTV footage and have since identified a person of interest.

    Later in a separate incident, around 10:30pm, police observed a suspicious vehicle driving through Wadeye community. The vehicle began flashing its lights at police and upon police approach the vehicle drove into nearby bushland.

    A short time later, police attempted a traffic apprehension; however, the vehicle failed to stop, and a short pursuit ensued. The offending vehicle then turned around and drove back in the direction of police, swerving toward their vehicle. Police withdrew from the area and returned to the police compound.

    Later, in a third incident, around 12:40am, one male attended the police compound and began throwing projectiles in the direction of the officers. Officers deployed OC spray before the male fled the scene.

    The first and third incident are believed to be linked; however, investigations are ongoing to identify those involved in the traffic incident.

    Police urge anyone with information to make contact on 131 444 or you can report anonymously through Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Member contributions statement

    Source: New places to play in Gungahlin

    What is a MCS

    The member contributions statement (MCS) is an annual statement used for the 2017–18 and prior years to report:

    • contributions you received for each member during the financial year
    • the balance and other attributes of the account they held in the fund.

    The MCS for the 2017–18 financial year was due 31 October 2018.

    Amendments to information reported on the MCS in the 2017–18 financial year and prior years should be done using Online services for business.

    For detailed information to how to complete the MCS for 2017–18 and prior years, see Member contributions statement protocolExternal Link.

    From 2018-19, the MCS has been replaced by the Member Account Attributes Service (MAAS) and the Member Account Transaction Service (MATS). For more information, see Fund reporting protocol.

    How we use the MCS for 2017–18 and prior years

    We use the MCS for 2017–18 and prior years to:

    • display information online to help members understand, manage and consolidate their super accounts
    • calculate the super co-contribution, low income super contribution (for concessional contributions made between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2017) and low income superannuation tax offset (for concessional contributions made from 1 July 2017) for eligible members, and pay entitlements to the appropriate destination
    • calculate each member’s concessional and non-concessional contributions and assess, and administer excess contributions tax and the ‘Fairer taxation of excess concessional contributions’ measure
    • assess the member’s liability to Division 293 tax
    • check employer compliance with the super guarantee
    • identify amounts to be collected for former temporary residents.

    What to include in the MCS

    You need to report for every person who was a member during the financial year for 2017-18 and prior years. This includes members who received no contributions during the year and those who rolled over their benefits or exited the fund before the end of the financial year.

    If you rollover all or part of the member’s super interest to another fund during the year, you must still lodge an MCS for that member and report all contributions received prior to the rollover.

    How to lodge

    Electronic lodgment

    You can lodge your MCS for 2017–18 and prior years electronically as a file transfer through Online services for business.

    You must lodge electronically if you’re reporting for 20 or more members. If you’re reporting for fewer than 20 members, electronic reporting is optional.

    The format of your MCS file must meet the current MCS electronic reporting specificationExternal Link.

    You’ll receive an online receipt when the report is lodged.

    Paper lodgment

    You can only lodge a paper form if you’re reporting for:

    In each case, you can still lodge electronically if you prefer.

    Lodging through a supplier or agent

    If a supplier (agent) lodges the MCS on your behalf, you must make a written declaration that:

    • you have authorised the supplier to give the MCS to us
    • the information you gave to the supplier to prepare the document is true and correct.

    Give the declaration to the supplier and keep a copy for 5 years. You must show us this declaration if we ask to see it.

    If the report is lodged:

    • electronically – you can make your declaration using the Supplier lodgment declaration
    • on paper – the declaration is included as part of the form.

    For more information, see Member contributions statement protocolExternal Link.

    Amendments

    If you discover any material errors or omissions in the information you reported in your MCS, you must lodge an amended MCS within 30 days of becoming aware of these errors.

    You must ensure that all the correct, previously reported data in the original MCS for those accounts is re-reported on the amended MCS, exactly as it was in the original lodgment. This is because an amended statement for a particular member account replaces the original MCS for that account.

    You must not amend an MCS merely because a member wants to change the amount or character of the contributions they made during the year, to avoid an excess contributions tax liability.

    Penalties

    Penalties may apply if you:

    • don’t lodge the MCS on time
    • don’t report for all your members and former members who held an interest in the fund at any time during the year
    • provide incorrect information.

    The amount of penalty depends on your fund’s assessable income and how late the lodgment was.

    For more information, see False or misleading statement penalty.

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Public country-by-country (CBC) registration form

    Source: New places to play in Gungahlin

    Who can register for Public CBC reporting

    All Public country-by-country (CBC) reporting parent entities (whether located overseas or in Australia) can register with the ATO.

    Registration allows for more efficient interactions with us, including:

    • nominating an authorised representative for your entity
    • providing your Public CBC report to us
    • requesting an extension of time to provide your Public CBC report
    • requesting an exemption from reporting obligations.

    Getting the registration form

    Download the Public country-by-country registration form (NAT 75645, PDF 306KB)This link will download a file and save it to your computer.

    Completing the form

    The form is a fillable PDF file to type in and fill out on-screen. Do not print the blank form and fill out by hand.

    You must complete the form in English.

    For help completing the form, see Instructions to complete Public country-by-country registration.

    Make sure you keep a copy of the completed form and any attachments for your own records.

    Lodging the form

    Email your completed Public country-by-country registration form (NAT 75645) to PublicCBCreports@ato.gov.au. You will receive a receipt email shortly afterwards.

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: News 06/11/2025 Blackburn Introduces Bill to End Taxpayer Funding for NPR and PBS

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced the Free Americans from Ideological Reporting (FAIR) Act to stop federal taxpayer dollars from being sent to National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) after years of left-wing politically biased reporting under the guise of public broadcasting. Senator Blackburn has long pushed to ensure taxpayers are not footing the bill for biased media, and this bill would codify the executive order President Trump issued on May 1, 2025.

    “For far too long, American taxpayers have been forced to foot the bill for NPR and PBS while they push left-wing propaganda,” said Senator Blackburn. “The FAIR Act would cut off taxpayer funding to these partisan outlets, ensuring the American people aren’t forced to subsidize media that disparages conservatives and does the left’s bidding.”

    • NPR and PBS have benefited from taxpayer dollars for years while showing a consistent pattern of editorial bias, left-leaning political slant, and a lack of public accountability. NPR and PBS have violated the spirit of public broadcasting by forcing American taxpayers to fund content that misrepresents and excludes conservative viewpoints.
    • Last year, Senator Blackburn called for NPR to lose its funding after it suspended an editor who exposed the outlet’s partisan bias.
    • NPR’s CEO, Katherine Maher, testified before Congress where she admitted to botching coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop and was grilled about the bias in the organization. Maher has also made statements calling President Trump a “fascist” and a “deranged racist sociopath.” PBS has pushed radical leftist gender ideology, releasing a movie called “Real Boy,” about a transgender teen.
    • President Trump issued an executive order on May 1, 2025, preventing federal dollars from funding NPR and PBS directly through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) or indirectly through member station dues.

    THE FAIR ACT

    The FAIR Act would:

    • Permanently bar CPB from directly funding NPR and PBS;
    • Permanently bar CPB from indirectly funding NPR and PBS by ensuring that licensees and permittees of public radio and television stations, as well as any other recipients of CPB funds, do not use federal funds for NPR and PBS; and
    • Require the heads of all agencies to identify and terminate direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS. 

    Click here for bill text

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Goodbye to all that? Rethinking Australia’s alliance with Trump’s America

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Beeson, Adjunct professor, Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney

    Even the most ardent supporters of the alliance with the United States – the notional foundation of Australian security for more than 70 years – must be having some misgivings about the second coming of Donald Trump.

    If they’re not, they ought to read the two essays under review here. They offer a host of compelling reasons why a reassessment of the costs, benefits and possible future trajectory of the alliance is long overdue.

    Review: After America: Australia and the new world order – Emma Shortis (Australia Institute Press), Hard New World: Our Post-American Future; Quarterly Essay 98 – Hugh White (Black Inc)

    And yet, notwithstanding the cogency and timeliness of the critiques offered by Emma Shortis and Hugh White, it seems unlikely either of these will be read, much less acted upon, by those Shortis describes as the “mostly men in suits or uniforms, with no democratic accountability” who make security policy on our behalf.

    White, emeritus professor of strategic studies at the ANU, was the principal author of Australia’s Defence White Paper in 2000. Despite having been a prominent member of the defence establishment, it is unlikely even his observations will prove any more palatable to its current incumbents.

    Shortis, an historian and writer, is director of the Australia Institute’s International & Security Affairs Program. She is also a young woman, and while this shouldn’t matter, I suspect it does; at least to the “mostly men” who guard the nation from a host of improbable threats while ignoring what is arguably the most likely and important one: climate change.

    The age of insecurity

    To Shortis’s great credit, she begins her essay with a discussion of a “world on fire” in which the Trump administration is “locking in a bleaker future”.

    This matters for both generational and geographical reasons. While we live in what is arguably the safest place on the planet, the country has the rare distinction of regularly experiencing once-in-100-year floods and droughts, sometimes simultaneously.

    If that’s not a threat to security, especially of the young, it’s hard to know what is. It’s not one the current government or any other in this country has ever taken seriously enough.

    White gives a rather perfunctory acknowledgement of this reality, reflecting an essentially traditional understanding of security – even if some of his conclusions will induce conniptions in Canberra.

    While suggesting Trump is “the most prodigious liar in history”, White thinks he’s done Australia a favour by “puncturing the complacency” surrounding the alliance and our unwillingness to contemplate a world in which the US is not the reliable bedrock of security.

    Shortis doubts the US ever was a trustworthy or reliable ally. This helps explain what she calls the “strategy of pre-emptive capitulation”, in which Australian policymakers fall over themselves to appear useful and supportive to their “great and powerful friend”. Former prime minister John Howard’s activation of the ANZUS alliance in the wake of September 11 and the disastrous decision to take part in the war in Iraq is perhaps the most egregious example of this unfortunate national proclivity.

    White reminds us that all alliances are always transactional. Despite talk of a “history of mateship”, it’s vital to recognise if the great power doesn’t think something is in its “national interest”, it won’t be doing favours for allies. No matter how ingratiating and obliging they may be. While such observations may be unwelcome in Canberra, hopefully they won’t come as a revelation.

    Although White is one of Australia’s most astute critics of the conventional wisdom, sceptics and aspiring peace-builders will find little to cheer in his analysis.

    A good deal of his essay is taken up with the strategic situations in Europe and Asia. The discussion offers a penetrating, but rather despair-inducing insight into humanity’s collective predicament: only by credibly threatening our notional foes with nuclear Armageddon can we hope to keep the peace.

    The problem we now face, White argues, is the likes of Russia and China are beginning to doubt America’s part in the “balance of resolve”. During the Cold War both sides were confident about the other side’s ability and willingness to blow them to pieces.

    Now mutual destruction is less assured. While some of us might think this was a cause for cautious celebration, White suggests it fatally undermines the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.

    Even before Trump reappeared, this was a source of angst and/or uncertainty for strategists around the world. The principle underpinning international order in a world in which nuclear weapons exist, according to White, is that

    a nuclear power can be stopped, but only by an unambiguous demonstration of willingness to fight a nuclear war to stop it.

    Trump represents a suitably existential threat to this cheery doctrine. Europeans have belatedly recognised the US is no longer reliable and they are responsible for their own security.

    Likewise, an ageing Xi Jinping may want to assure his position in China’s pantheon of great leaders by forcibly returning Taiwan to the motherland. It would be an enormous gamble, of course, but given Trump’s admiration for Xi, and Trump’s apparent willingness to see the world carved up into 19th century-style spheres of influence, it can’t be ruled out.

    Australia’s options

    If there’s one thing both authors agree on it’s that the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, the notional centrepiece of Australia’s future security is vastly overrated. It’s either a “disaster” (Shortis) or “insignificant” (White).

    Likewise, they agree the US is only going to help Australia if it’s judged to be in America’s interest to do so. Recognising quite what an ill-conceived, ludicrously expensive, uncertain project AUKUS is, and just how unreliable a partner the US has become under Trump, might be a useful step on the path to national strategic self-awareness.

    Shortis thinks some members of the Trump administration appear to be “aligned with Russia”. Tying ourselves closer to the US, she writes, “does not make us safer”. A major rethink of, and debate about, Australia’s security policy is clearly necessary.

    Policymakers also ought to take seriously White’s arguments about the need to reconfigure the armed forces to defend Australia independently in an increasingly uncertain international environment.

    Perhaps the hardest idea for Australia’s unimaginative strategic elites to grasp is that, as White points out,

    Asia’s future, and Australia’s, will not be decided in Washington. It will be decided in Asia.

    Former prime minister Paul Keating’s famous remark “Australia needs to seek its security in Asia rather than from Asia” remains largely unheeded. Despite plausible suggestions about developing closer strategic ties with Indonesia and even cooperating with China to offer leadership on climate change, some ideas remain sacrosanct and alternatives remain literally inconceivable.

    Even if we take a narrow view of the nature of security – one revolving around possible military threats to Australia – US Defence Secretary Pete Hesgeth’s demands for greater defence spending on our part confirm White’s point that,

    it is classic Trump to expect more and more from allies while he offers them less and less. This is the dead end into which our “America First” defence policy has led us.

    Quite so.

    Australia’s strategic elites have locked us into the foreign and strategic policies of an increasingly polarised, authoritarian and unpredictable regime.

    But as Shortis observes, we cannot be confident about our ability, or the world’s for that matter, to “just ride Trump out”, and hope everything will return to normal afterwards.

    It is entirely possible the international situation may get worse – possibly much worse – with or without Trump in the White House.

    The reality is American democracy may not survive another four years of Trump and the coterie of startlingly ill-qualified, inhumane, self-promoting chancers who make up much of his administration.

    A much-needed national debate

    Both authors think attempts to “smother” a serious national debate about defence policy in Australia (White), and the security establishment’s obsession with secrecy (Shortis), are the exact opposite of what this country needs at this historical juncture. They’re right.

    Several senior members of Australia’s security community have assured me if I only knew what they did I’d feel very differently about our strategic circumstances.

    Really? One thing I do know is that we’re spending far too much time – and money! – acting on what Shortis describes as a “shallow and ungenerous understanding of what ‘security’ really is”.

    We really could stop the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza if Xi had a word with Putin and the US stopped supplying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the weapons and money to slaughter women and children. But climate change would still be coming to get us.

    More importantly, global warming will get worse before it gets better, even in the unlikely event that the “international community” (whoever that may be) agrees on meaningful collective action tomorrow.

    You may not agree with all of the ideas and suggestions contained in these essays, but in their different ways they are vital contributions to a much-needed national debate.

    An informed and engaged public is a potential asset, not something to be frightened of, after all. Who knows, it may be possible to come up with some genuinely progressive, innovative ideas about what sort of domestic and international policies might be appropriate for an astonishingly fortunate country with no enemies.

    Perhaps Australia could even offer an example of the sort of creative, independent middle power diplomacy a troubled world might appreciate and even emulate.

    But given our political and strategic elites can’t free themselves from the past, it is difficult to see them dealing imaginatively with the threat of what Shortis calls the looming “environmental catastrophe”.

    No wonder so many of the young despair and have little confidence in democracy’s ability to fix what ails us.

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

    – ref. Goodbye to all that? Rethinking Australia’s alliance with Trump’s America – https://theconversation.com/goodbye-to-all-that-rethinking-australias-alliance-with-trumps-america-258066

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: 201 ways to say ‘fuck’: what 1.7 billion words of online text shows about how the world swears

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Schweinberger, Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, The University of Queensland

    Our brains swear for good reasons: to vent, cope, boost our grit and feel closer to those around us. Swear words can act as social glue and play meaningful roles in how people communicate, connect and express themselves – both in person, and online.

    In our new research published in Lingua, we analysed more than 1.7 billion words of online language across 20 English-speaking regions. We identified 597 different swear word forms – from standard words, to creative spellings like “4rseholes”, to acronyms like “wtf”.

    The findings challenge a familiar stereotype. Australians – often thought of as prolific swearers – are actually outdone by Americans and Brits, both in how often they swear, and in how many users swear online.

    Facts and figures

    Our study focused on publicly available web data (such as news articles, organisational websites, government or institutional publications, and blogs – but excluding social media and private messaging). We found vulgar words made up 0.036% of all words in the dataset from the United States, followed by 0.025% in the British data and 0.022% in the Australian data.

    Although vulgar language is relatively rare in terms of overall word frequency, it was used by a significant number of individuals.

    Between 12% and 13.3% of Americans, around 10% of Brits, and 9.4% of Australians used at least one vulgar word in their data. Overall, the most frequent vulgar word was “fuck” – with all its variants, it amounted to a stunning 201 different forms.

    We focused on online language that didn’t include social media, because large-scale comparisons need robust, purpose-built datasets. In our case, we used the Global Web-Based English (GloWbE) corpus, which was specifically designed to compare how English is used across different regions online.

    So how much were our findings influenced by the online data we used?

    Telling results come from research happening at the same time as ours. One study analysed the use of “fuck” in social networks on X, examining how network size and strength influence swearing in the UK, US and Australia.

    It used data from 5,660 networks with more than 435,000 users and 7.8 billion words and found what we did. Americans use “fuck” most frequently, while Australians use it the least, but with the most creative spelling variations (some comfort for anyone feeling let down by our online swearing stats).

    Teasing apart cultural differences

    Americans hold relatively conservative attitudes toward public morality, and their high swearing rates are surprising. The cultural contradiction may reflect the country’s strong individualistic culture. Americans often value personal expression – especially in private or anonymous settings like the internet.

    Meanwhile, public displays of swearing are often frowned upon in the US. This is partly due to the lingering influence of religious norms, which frame swearing – particularly religious-based profanity – as a violation of moral decency.

    Significantly, the only religious-based swear word in our dataset, “damn”, was used most frequently by Americans.

    Research suggests swearing is more acceptable in Australian public discourse. Certainly, Australia’s public airing of swear words often takes visitors by surprise. The long-running road safety slogan “If you drink, then drive, you’re a bloody idiot” is striking – such language is rare in official messaging elsewhere.

    Australians may be comfortable swearing in person, but our findings indicate they dial it back online – surprising for a nation so fond of its vernacular.

    In terms of preferences for specific forms of vulgarity, Americans showed a strong preference for variations of “ass(hole)”, the Irish favored “feck”, the British preferred “cunt”, and Pakistanis leaned toward “butt(hole)”.

    The only statistically significant aversion we found was among Americans, who tended to avoid the word “bloody” (folk wisdom claims the word is blasphemous).

    Being fluent in swearing

    People from countries where English is the dominant language – such as the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland – tend to swear more frequently and with more lexical variety than people in regions where English is less dominant like India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Ghana or the Philippines. This pattern holds for both frequency and creativity in swearing.

    But Singapore ranked fourth in terms of frequency of swearing in our study, just behind Australia and ahead of New Zealand, Ireland and Canada. English in Singapore is increasingly seen not as a second language, but as a native language, and as a tool for identity, belonging and creativity. Young Singaporeans use social swearing to push back against authority, especially given the government’s strict rules on public language.

    One possible reason we saw less swearing among non-native English speakers is that it is rarely taught. Despite its frequency and social utility, swearing – alongside humour and informal speech – is often left out of language education.

    Cursing comes naturally

    Cultural, social and technological shifts are reshaping linguistic norms, blurring the already blurry lines between informal and formal, private and public language. Just consider the Aussie contributions to the July Oxford English Dictionary updates: expressions like “to strain the potatoes” (to urinate), “no wuckers” and “no wucking furries” (from “no fucking worries”).

    Swearing and vulgarity aren’t just crass or abusive. While they can be used harmfully, research consistently shows they serve important communicative functions – colourful language builds rapport, expresses humour and emotion, signals solidarity and eases tension.

    It’s clear that swearing isn’t just a bad habit that can be easily kicked, like nail-biting or smoking indoors. Besides, history shows that telling people not to swear is one of the best ways to keep swearing alive and well.

    Martin Schweinberger has received funding from from the Centre for Digital Cultures and Society and the School of Languages and Cultures at the University of Queensland. He is currently funded by the Language Data Commons of Australia, which has received investment from the Australian Research Data Commons, funded by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.

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

    – ref. 201 ways to say ‘fuck’: what 1.7 billion words of online text shows about how the world swears – https://theconversation.com/201-ways-to-say-fuck-what-1-7-billion-words-of-online-text-shows-about-how-the-world-swears-257815

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Extreme weather could send milk prices soaring, deepening challenges for the dairy industry

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milena Bojovic, Lecturer, Sustainability and Environment, University of Technology Sydney

    Australia’s dairy industry is in the middle of a crisis, fuelled by an almost perfect storm of challenges.

    Climate change and extreme weather have been battering farmlands and impacting animal productivity, creating mounting financial strains and mental health struggles for many farmers.

    Meanwhile, beyond the farm gate, consumer tastes are shifting to a range of dairy substitutes. Interest and investment in alternative dairy proteins is accelerating.

    Earlier this month, industry figures warned consumers to prepare for price rises amid expected shortages of milk, butter and cheese. Already mired in uncertainty, the dairy industry is now being forced to confront some tough questions about its future head on.

    Dairy under pressure

    Dairy is Australia’s third-largest rural industry. It produces more than A$6 billion worth of milk each year, and directly employs more than 30,000 people.

    But the sector has been under sustained pressure. This year alone, repeated extreme weather events have affected key dairy-producing regions in southern and eastern parts of Australia.

    In New South Wales, dairy farmers face increased pressure from floods. In May, many regions had their monthly rainfall records broken – some by huge margins.

    In Victoria, drought and water shortages are worsening. Tasmania, too, continues to endure some of the driest conditions in more than a century.

    Conditions have prompted many farmers to sell down their cattle numbers to conserve feed and water.

    All of this heavily impacts farm productivity. Agriculture has long been predicated on our ability to predict climate conditions and grow food or rear animals according to the cycles of nature.

    As climate change disrupts weather patterns, this makes both short and long-term planning for the sector a growing challenge.

    High costs, low profits

    Climate change isn’t the only test. The industry has also been grappling with productivity and profitability concerns.

    At the farm level, dairy farmers are feeling the impacts of high operating costs. Compared to other types of farming (such as sheep or beef), dairy farms require more plant, machinery and equipment capital, mostly in the form of specialised milking machinery.

    The price of milk also has many farmers concerned. The modest increase in farmgate milk prices – just announced by dairy companies for the start of the next financial year – left many farmers disappointed. Some say the increase isn’t enough to cover rising operating costs.

    Zooming out, there are concerns about a lack of family succession planning for dairy farms. Many young people are wary of taking on such burdens, and the total number of Australian dairy farms has been in steady decline – from more than 6,000 in 2015 to just 4,163 in 2023.

    What’s the solution?

    Is there a way to make the dairy industry more productive, profitable and sustainable? Australian Dairy Farmers is the national policy and advocacy group supporting the profitability and sustainability of the sector.

    In the lead up to this year’s federal election, the group called for $399 million in government investment to address what it said were key priorities. These included:

    • investment in on-farm technologies to improve efficiencies
    • funding for water security
    • upskilling programs for farmers
    • support for succession planning.
    Industry figures have warned consumers to brace for possible increases in the cost of dairy products.
    wisely/Shutterstock

    However, as the industry struggles to grapple with a changing climate, financial strain and mental health pressures, there should also be pathways for incumbent farmers to transition, either to farming dairy differently (such as by reducing herd sizes) or exiting out of dairy farming and into something else.

    Dairy without the cows

    The push to make dairy production more sustainable and efficient faces its own competition. A number of techniques in development promise dairy products without the cows, through cellular agriculture – and more specifically, “precision fermentation”.

    Australian company Eden Brew, in partnership with dairy giant Norco, has plans to produce and commercialise precision fermentation dairy proteins.

    And last year, Australian company All G secured approval to sell precision fermentation lactoferrin (a key dairy ingredient in baby formula) in China – another animal-free milk product.

    It is important to note that cost and scalability for cellular agriculture remains a challenge.

    Nonetheless, Australia’s rapidly growing non-dairy milk market – soy, oat, and so on – is now worth over $600 million annually. This reflects the global shift towards plant-based options driven by health, environmental, and ethical concerns.

    Is there a win-win outcome?

    Is there a possible future where more funding is given to produce milk at scale through precision fermentation while we also look after incumbent dairy workers, farms and the rural sector at large to diversify or leave the sector altogether?

    Some believe this future is possible. This is what researchers call “protein pluralism” – a market where traditional and alternative proteins coexist. Long-term planning from both the dairy industry and government would be needed.

    Remember, while techniques like precision fermentation offer the promise of animal-free dairy products, their benefits are largely yet to materialise. How they will ultimately benefit the whole of society remains speculative.

    What we can do now

    For this reason, some scholars have argued we should prioritise actions that can be taken now. This includes support for practices such as agroecology, which seek to address injustice and inequity in food systems to help empower primary food producers.

    A recent study found Australian dairy farmers were interested in financial and technical advice to make decisions about where they take their business in future.

    Despite growing recognition of the challenges facing the dairy sector, responses from government and alternative dairy remain uneven. A more coordinated approach is needed for affected farmers, helping them adapt or diversify with guidance from government and industry experts.

    Milena Bojovic volunteers with Farm Transitions Australia, a registered charity which helps Australian dairy and beef farmers facing hardship and seeking a transition from the industry. She is affiliated with ARC Centre for Excellence in Synthetic Biology.

    – ref. Extreme weather could send milk prices soaring, deepening challenges for the dairy industry – https://theconversation.com/extreme-weather-could-send-milk-prices-soaring-deepening-challenges-for-the-dairy-industry-258175

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Hard to measure and difficult to shift’: the government’s big productivity challenge

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

    Higher productivity has quickly emerged as an economic reform priority for Labor’s second term.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has laid down some markers for a productivity round table in August, saying he wants it to build the “broadest possible base” for further economic reform.

    The government is right to focus on productivity. Improving economic efficiency will increase real wages, help bring down inflation and interest rates, and improve living standards.

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers is flagging a broad productivity agenda, but acknowledges the rewards will take time to percolate through the economy:

    Human capital, competition policy, technology, energy, the care economy – these are where we are going to find the productivity gains, and not quickly, but over the medium term.

    Making the economy operate more efficiently is simple in concept. But Albanese and Chalmers would be well aware productivity is hard to measure, and even more difficult to shift.

    The numbers are fraught

    What do we mean by productivity growth? And how will it help lift the economy? The authors of the bestselling new book Abundance offer this neat explanation:

    People need to think up new ideas. Factories need to innovate new processes. These new ideas and new processes must be encoded into new technologies. All this is grouped under the sterile label of productivity: How much more can we produce with the same number of people and resources?

    At its most basic, productivity measures outputs divided by inputs – what we produce compared to the resources such as labour and capital used to produce it.

    But large parts of the “non-market” economy including the public service, health care and education are excluded from the official productivity figures.

    The Australian Bureau of Statistics is working to address the gap in the data. For example, it is developing “experimental estimates” for the health sector, which suggests hospital productivity has fallen.

    However measurement is fraught. If a nurse, for instance, who previously cared for four patients now looks after eight, is that a productivity improvement? Or a drop in standard of care?

    Flatlining productivity

    Australian productivity growth has averaged just 0.4% a year since 2015 – the lowest rate in 60 years.

    The exception was during COVID, when industries with low productivity, such as accommodation and food, were shut down and those with high productivity – such as IT and communications – thrived.

    The objective must be to return to, or even surpass, historical levels of productivity. However, it won’t be easy given economists have no clear idea why productivity growth has fallen in Australia and overseas.

    Theories include:

    • measurement problems
    • new industries
    • decline in business investment in equipment and technology
    • more service industries, where productivity is lower
    • the easy reforms have all been done.

    No shortage of advice

    Productivity is multidimensional, with an absurd number of moving parts. It depends on skills, technology, investment, knowledge, management, and a host of other factors. Like the movie, it’s “everything, everywhere all at once”.

    The government has a plethora of advice on how to improve productivity. Scientists argue for more scientific research; business lobbies for more investment breaks;
    innovators for more technological advances.

    This poses a dilemma for the Treasurer. Most suggestions on their own would make some difference. Doing all of them would make a huge difference. Alas, government cannot do everything. It must choose where to apply its limited resources.

    Beyond money and time, the government must also have appetite for the fight.

    Interest groups typically support productivity reforms in principle, but resist them if they are directly affected. Every inefficient regulation or program has a supporter somewhere.

    Five pillars

    Jim Chalmers does not need another shopping list. He needs help to sort through options and set priorities for which fights to pick. To this end, in December year he tasked the Productivity Commission with new inquiries into the five main drivers – “pillars” – of higher productivity.



    Read more:
    Labor says its second term will be about productivity reform. These ideas could help shift the dial

    Yet the Albanese government has already been handed a comprehensive blueprint for productivity reform.

    In March 2023, the Productivity Commission released the Advancing Prosperity report, which it described as a “road map”.

    However, it had more of a shopping list feel, incorporating 71 recommendations and 29 “reform directives”. Many were of the “should” variety, lacking a detailed plan of how to do them.

    Roughly speaking, any government only has bandwidth for one big and a few small reforms a term. It cannot implement more than 70, even if that’s ideal.

    Productivity reform will succeed if it involves only a few changes – preferably those that deliver the most improvement for the least complaint.

    Some proposed measures are desirable but controversial. The tax system, for example, is crying out for improvement, but the government is unlikely to take it on.

    Reforming occupational licences to make it easier for tradies to move states is a more modest aim. It would not generate the same productivity gains, but politically would be simpler to implement.

    Nothing to fear

    Finally, some words of caution.

    Productivity is not code for exploiting workers. As The Guardian recently noted:

    When most people hear the word ‘productivity’ they think of their boss wanting them to take on more duties for the same pay. That’s not the case. It’s about getting more out of the hours you work.

    Working harder to get the same result is in fact a drop in productivity. Working shorter hours for the same outputs is productivity growth, with the benefits seen in better work-life balance.

    Nor is productivity just about producing more outputs. Who needs more useless stuff?

    And statistics can mislead, because they measure the value of production, not the quality. A broader accounting for production, incorporating society and the environment, would help the productivity debate avoid this trap.

    Albanese and Chalmers readily acknowledge the government can do more on productivity. Anyone with an interest in driving a more efficient economy, higher real wages and better living standards will hold them to their word.

    This article is part of The Conversation’s series examining the productivity dilemma.

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

    – ref. ‘Hard to measure and difficult to shift’: the government’s big productivity challenge – https://theconversation.com/hard-to-measure-and-difficult-to-shift-the-governments-big-productivity-challenge-257968

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A reversal in US climate policy will send renewables investors packing – and Australia can reap the benefits

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Downie, Professor, Australian National University

    President Donald Trump is trying to unravel the signature climate policy of his predecessor Joe Biden, the Inflation Reduction Act, as part of a sweeping bid to dismantle the United States’ climate ambition.

    The Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, is a A$530 billion suite of measures that aims to turbocharge clean energy investment and slash emissions in the US. Once hailed as a game-changer for the global clean energy transition, it set in train a fierce international competition for renewable energy investment.

    But the policy is now hanging by a thread, after the US House of Representatives last month narrowly passed a bill to repeal many of its clean energy measures.

    Should the bill pass the Senate, billions of dollars in renewables investment once destined for the US could be looking for a new home. Now is the time for the Albanese government to woo investors with a bolder program of climate action in Australia.

    The Trump administration is seeking to wind back Biden’s signature climate policy.
    Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Climate Power 2020

    What is the Inflation Reduction Act?

    The Inflation Reduction Act passed US Congress in 2022. It legislated billions of dollars in tax credits for solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and geothermal plants, among other technologies.

    It included around A$13 billion in rebates for Americans to electrify their homes, tax credits of almost A$11,000 to electrify their cars, and billions more to establish a “green bank” and target agricultural emissions.

    The money flowed. Last year, almost A$420 billion was invested in the manufacture and deployment of clean energy – double that in 2021, the year before the legislation passed.

    Even in the first quarter of this year, under a Trump presidency, A$103 billion was invested in clean energy tech – an increase on the first quarter results of 2024. Electric vehicle manufacturing projects, especially batteries, were standout performers.

    Then US president Joe Biden in August 2023, celebrating the first anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act. The policy aimed to turbocharge the clean energy transition.
    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    But then came the proposed repeal. The Trump administration wants to gut tax credits for clean energy technologies. The measures passed the House of Representatives and must now clear the US Senate, where the Republicans have a margin of three votes.

    Initial modelling suggests the bill, if passed, could derail clean energy manufacturing in the US – including in Republican states where new projects were planned.

    The potential economic damage has sparked concern even among Trump’s own troops. Some Republicans last week reportedly urged the scaling back of the cuts, despite voting for the bill in the House.

    Opportunities for Australia

    After the IRA was enacted, many countries followed the US’ lead – including Australia’s Albanese government, which legislated the A$22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package.

    So how will Trump’s unravelling of the policy affect the rest of the world?

    The economic impacts are still being modelled. Some studies suggest the US could cede A$123 billion in investment to other countries.

    The US axing of tax credits for battery and solar technology paves the way for nations such as China and South Korea to capitalise – given, for example, they already dominate battery manufacturing.

    Australia should be doing its utmost to attract investors that no longer see the US as an option. Our existing policies are a start, but they are not sufficient.

    In February this year, Labor increased the investment capacity of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – Australia’s “green bank” – by A$2 billion. But more will be needed if the government is serious about crowding-in private investment in low-emission technologies exiting the US.

    The government would also be wise to remove incentives that increase fossil fuel use. This includes the diesel fuel rebate, which encourages the use of diesel-powered trucks on mine sites. Fortescue Metals this week announced a push for the subsidy to be wound back – potentially providing the political opening Labor needs.

    What about nuclear?

    Trump has also promised a “nuclear renaissance”, signing four executive orders designed to reinvigorate the US nuclear energy industry.

    But those measures are likely to fail, just as Trump’s 2016 promise to revive the coal industry never eventuated.

    In fact, his cuts to the Loan Programs Office – which helps finance new energy projects including nuclear – threaten to undermine the viability of new nuclear plants. The office has been the guarantor for every new US nuclear plant this century, bar one.

    If the US is struggling to scale up its existing nuclear industry, this does not bode well for the technology’s hopes in Australia. Here, the prospect of a nuclear energy policy still appears alive in the Coalition party room, even though the technology remains politically unpopular, and the economics don’t stack up.

    What’s next?

    Predicting US climate and energy policy is a fool’s errand, given the potential IRA repeal, flip-flopping tariff announcements and daily social media tirades from Trump, including a social media bust-up with former ally Elon Musk over the merits of the repeal itself.

    Stepping back from the politics, we cannot ignore the climate harms flowing from a walk-back on US climate action.

    The US is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. As climate change reaches new extremes, the policy vacuum created by Donald Trump must urgently be filled by the rest of the world.

    Christian Downie receives funding from the Australian Research Council

    – ref. A reversal in US climate policy will send renewables investors packing – and Australia can reap the benefits – https://theconversation.com/a-reversal-in-us-climate-policy-will-send-renewables-investors-packing-and-australia-can-reap-the-benefits-258388

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Galloping Goose will bridge Tillicum for a safer commute

    A new crossing is coming to the Galloping Goose Regional Trail in Saanich, allowing people using the trail to safely cross Tillicum Road without waiting at the traffic lights.

    The new 100-metre (almost 330 feet) Tillicum Active Transportation Bridge will feature two three-metre-wide (10 feet) lanes with ramp access to sidewalks, safe connections to intersections and rapid bus stops, and an incline for accessibility.

    Work is expected to begin in early 2026, with the bridge opening scheduled for summer 2027.

    People are invited to learn more about this safer, more accessible way to cross Highway 1 at Tillicum Road. Galloping Goose Regional Trail users can get more information at a pop-up open house just off the trail (northwest corner of Tillicum Road and Highway 1) on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, from 3:30 until 5:30 p.m. Information is also available on the ministry’s website.

    Once complete, the Tillicum Active Transportation Bridge will eliminate one of the last signalized crossings on the Galloping Goose Trail between downtown Victoria and the Westshore, improving safety and reducing travel times for active commuters. Improvements to the trail also support goals outlined in the Province’s South Island Transportation Strategy, by providing better links for people to move more easily between communities in the Capital Region.

    During construction, users of the Galloping Goose Regional Trail will be temporarily detoured onto the shoulder of the Trans-Canada Highway. The trail will be separated from highway traffic by concrete barriers.

    More than 3,000 people use this stretch of the Galloping Goose Regional Trail each day in summer, and as many as 1,500 in winter. The new bridge will support more people in choosing active transportation and enjoying the outdoors.

    Learn More:

    For more information, visit:
    https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation-projects/other-transportation-projects/tillicum-active-transportation-bridge-project

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Microaggressions’ can fly under the radar in schools. Here’s how to spot them and respond

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Leslie, Lecturer in Curriculum and Pedagogy with a focus on Educational Psychology, University of Southern Queensland

    Klaus Vedfelt/ Getty Images

    Bullying is sadly a common experience for Australian children and teenagers. It is estimated at least 25% experience bullying at some point in their schooling.

    The impacts can be far-reaching and include depression and anxiety, poorer school performance, and poorer connection to school.

    The federal government is currently doing a “rapid review” of how to better prevent bullying in schools. This do this, we need a clear understanding of the full spectrum of aggressive behaviours that occur in schools.

    We already know bullying can be physical, verbal and social, and can occur in person and online. But there is less awareness among educators and policymakers of “microaggressions”. These can be more subtle but are nonetheless very damaging.



    Read more:
    With a government review underway, we have to ask why children bully other kids

    What’s the difference between bullying and microaggressions?

    Bullying is unwanted aggressive behaviour by a person or group against a targeted victim, with the intent to harm. The behaviour is repeated and there is a power imbalance between the perpetrator and victim.

    Microaggressions are a form of aggression that communicate a person is less valued because of a particular attribute – for example, their race, gender or disability.

    Microaggressions are repeated, cumulative and reflect power imbalances between social groups. A key difference with traditional bullying is microaggressions are often unconscious on the part of the perpetrator – and can be perpetrated with no ill intent.

    For example, traditional bullying could include a child always excluding another child from the group, always pushing them when they walk past them, or calling them a rude name.

    Microaggressions could include:

    • saying “you don’t look disabled” to a student with an invisible disability

    • mispronouncing a student’s name with no attempt to correct the pronunciation

    • saying to a student of colour, “wow, you’re so articulate”, implying surprise at their language skills

    • minimising a student with disability’s experience by saying “it can’t be that difficult. Just try harder.”

    We don’t have specific statistics on prevalence within Australia, although there is ample research to say those from minority groups frequently experience microaggressions.

    For example, studies of young people in the United States found incidents of microaggressions, often focused on racism, homophobia, transphobia and fat stigma. Students who held more than one identity (for example, a minority race and sexual orientation), were more likely to be targets.

    Microaggressions in schools

    My 2025 research on microaggressions towards dyslexic students in Australia found both students and parents can be on the receiving end. Teachers, school support officers and other students could be perpetrators.

    These interactions minimised the students’ experiences of dyslexia and made them feel like second class students compared to their peers.

    Some of the children reported comments from peers such as “oh yeah, reading, writing is hard already” which minimised the difficulties caused by dyslexia. Another student recalled how a peer had corrected her spelling “by snatching my book and re-writing it”, assuming she couldn’t do it herself. One student was made to feel bad for using a laptop in class as “someone said it was cheating”.

    The impact of microaggressions

    Schools where microaggressions occur are not safe spaces for all students.

    This can have serious implications for students’ school attendance, harm their mental health and ability to learn and socialise.

    Research on US university students, showed students may also become hypervigilant waiting for future microaggressions to occur.

    One Australian study found microaggressions can be so bad for some school students, they change schools in search of environments where staff and peers are more accepting.

    How to address microaggressions

    Research suggests addressing microaggressions can work as a prevention strategy to reduce other forms of bullying before it starts.

    Studies also show teacher awareness of microaggressions is key to preventing and addressing incidents.

    So a first step step is to make sure schools, teachers and students are aware of microagressions. Teachers should be educated about the relationship between microaggressions and bullying.

    Schools need to create environments where microaggressions are understood, recognised and addressed. All students need to be taught how to respond appropriately as bystanders if they see microaggressions happening in the classroom, playground or online.

    If a student feels that they or a friend has been made to feel less because of their identity, then they should be encouraged to seek help from an appropriate adult.

    Schools also need proactive programs to foster inclusion in schools. Research shows school psychologists can help by delivering programs in mental health and social and emotional development.

    Just as schools, teachers and school psychologists can be proactive in addressing microaggressions, so too can the federal government – by including microaggressions in its anti-bullying review.

    If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.

    Rachel Leslie is a committee member for the Australian Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools association.

    – ref. ‘Microaggressions’ can fly under the radar in schools. Here’s how to spot them and respond – https://theconversation.com/microaggressions-can-fly-under-the-radar-in-schools-heres-how-to-spot-them-and-respond-258684

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Medical scans are big business and investors are circling. Here are 3 reasons to be concerned

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sean Docking, Research Fellow, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

    wedmoments.stock/Shutterstock

    Timely access to high-quality medical imaging can be lifesaving and life-altering. Radiology can confirm a fractured bone, give us an early glimpse of our baby or detect cancer.

    But behind the x-ray, ultrasound, CT and MRI machines is a growing, highly profitable industry worth almost A$6 billion a year.

    Corporate ownership dominates the sector. In our new study, we show how for-profit corporations own about three in every five private radiology clinics.

    As radiology becomes an increasingly attractive target for investors, are we letting business interests reshape a key part of our health-care system?

    30 million scans and counting

    In 2023–24, two in five Australians had an x-ray, ultrasound, CT scan or MRI. That’s about 30.8 million scans in total (individuals may have two or more scans).

    Medicare funds most of this imaging. In fact, imaging is now Medicare’s second-largest area of spending, behind only GP visits.

    But a growing number of scans are not bulk billed and patients are out of pocket on average about $125 per scan. An estimated 274,000 Australians are delaying or forgoing scans each year because of the cost.

    There have also been dramatic changes behind the scenes. Since the early 2000s, for-profit corporations have been buying small radiologist-owned clinics.

    Today, 65% of private radiology practices are owned by publicly listed shareholders or private investors, including private equity firms. This marks a significant shift from clinician-led to investor-driven health care.

    Need an ultrasound? You may end up at a private radiology clinic.
    Inside Creative House/Shutterstock

    Why should we care?

    Advocates of corporate ownership suggest this business-focused approach can make the system more efficient through economies of scale. They say this allows consolidation of administration tasks and a reduction in overheads.

    Easy access to finance can help buy expensive imaging machines. It can also provide investment towards new technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

    Yet, there are three main reasons why corporate ownership of the radiology sector may be cause for concern.

    1. It reduces competition

    Large corporations buying up a bunch of smaller practices ultimately leads to less competition. In Tasmania, for example, 11 of the 17 private radiology clinics are owned by one company, significantly limiting patient choice.

    We also found limited competition among radiology providers in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory.

    When a single company dominates a local market, it creates the conditions for higher fees and reduced incentives to bulk bill. However, objective data on the impact of reduced competition on the affordability of scans is scarce.

    2. It may lead to too many expensive scans

    High-cost scans, such as MRIs and CTs, are lucrative. Medicare expenditure on MRI scans alone has doubled since 2012.

    This may reflect improved access and a recommended shift towards more sensitive tests for some conditions. However, for-profit corporations now own about 76% of MRI machines in private clinics. These corporations may be financially incentivised to offer more costly imaging over equally effective, lower-cost options.

    With profits tied to the number of scans, there’s growing unease financial motives may be influencing when and how often these scans are used.

    While radiology corporations are not the ones requesting scans, there is little incentive for them to address overuse of radiology services, an issue for high-income countries such as Australia.

    Low-value imaging may also generate overdiagnosis (when something shows up on imaging but will never cause the patient any health issues, for example). It can lead to unnecessarily exposing patients to radiation and cause unwarranted patient (and doctor) anxiety. This can ultimately lead to more tests and unnecessary treatment.

    Is an MRI scan really necessary? Sometimes cheaper imaging is best.
    illustrissima/Shutterstock

    3. Radiology clinics become an asset

    Private equity firms view radiology clinics as a commodity to be bought, their value increased, then sold over a relatively short time frame (typically three to seven years).

    These firms generate profit not from delivering care, but from boosting the clinic’s value and charging them annual “management fees”.

    A prime example is unfolding. I-MED, Australia’s largest radiology provider, is considering listing the business on the Australian Stock Exchange after failing to sell at a reported $3 billion. Its UK private equity owner bought I-MED for about $1.26 billion in 2018. If sold, this would be the latest of multiple owners since delisting from the stock exchange in 2006.

    If there are debts, health-care companies can collapse, as we’ve seen recently with hospital chain Healthscope, which is owned by a Canadian-based private equity firm.

    Experience of private equity’s role in health care in the United States also offers a cautionary tale. Reductions in the quality of care, asset stripping and ultimately the closure and bankruptcy of vital health-care providers have prompted Congressional investigations. The state of Oregon is on the verge of blocking private equity firms from controlling health-care providers.

    What next?

    As radiology becomes an increasingly attractive target for investors, questions are mounting about whether this profit-driven model can coexist with the public’s need for affordable, accessible health care.

    Medicare was designed to guarantee affordable access to quality health care for all Australians, not guarantee revenue for corporations.

    While unwinding corporate participation in the radiology sector is near impossible, there is still time to implement safeguards that prevent wealthy investors from prioritising financial gain over Australians’ health and wellbeing.

    Stronger oversight and greater transparency from these corporations are needed to ensure Medicare dollars deliver real value for patients and the public.

    We would like to acknowledge Jenn Lacy-Nichols (University of Melbourne) and Martin Hensher (University of Tasmania) who co-authored the paper mentioned in this article.

    Sean Docking is a member of UniSuper (Industry Super Holdings Pty Ltd) as part of his superannuation; Unisuper is an investor in PRP Diagnostic Imaging. He has no direct investments in any diagnostic imaging companies.

    Rachelle Buchbinder has received grant funding from NHMRC, MRFF, Arthritis Australia and HCF Foundation. She receives royalties from UpToDate for writing and editing ‘Plantar fasciitis’. She also receives royalties for her book entitled ‘Hippocrasy: How doctors are betraying their oath’. She has not received funding from for-profit industry, including from radiology companies.

    – ref. Medical scans are big business and investors are circling. Here are 3 reasons to be concerned – https://theconversation.com/medical-scans-are-big-business-and-investors-are-circling-here-are-3-reasons-to-be-concerned-257820

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Were the first kings of Poland actually from Scotland? New DNA evidence unsettles a nation’s founding myth

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University

    An illustration from a 15th-century manuscript showing the coronation of the first king of Poland, Boleslaw I. Chronica Polonorum by Mathiae de Mechovia

    For two centuries, scholars have sparred over the roots of the Piasts, Poland’s first documented royal house, who reigned from the 10th to the 14th centuries.

    Were they local Slavic nobles, Moravian exiles, or warriors from Scandinavia?

    Since 2023, a series of genetic and environmental studies led by molecular biologist Marek Figlerowicz at the Poznań University of Technology has delivered a stream of direct evidence about these enigmatic rulers, bringing the debate onto firmer ground.

    Digging up the dynasty

    Field teams have now opened more than a dozen crypts from the Piast era. The largest single haul came from Płock Cathedral in what is now central Poland.

    The exhumed bones were dated between 1100 and 1495, matching written records. Genetic analysis showed several individuals were close relatives.

    “There is no doubt we are dealing with genuine Piasts,” Figlerowicz told a May 2025 conference.

    The Poznań group isolated readable DNA from 33 individuals (30 men and three women) believed to span the dynasty’s full timeline.

    Surprise on the Y chromosome

    The male skeletons almost all carry a single, rare group of genetic variants on the Y chromosome (which is only carried and passed down by males). This group is today found mainly in Britain. The closest known match belongs to a Pict buried in eastern Scotland in the 5th or 6th century.

    These results imply that the dynasty’s paternal line arrived from the vicinity of the North Atlantic, not nearby.

    Mieszko I, the first Piast ruler documented in written sources.
    Jan Matejko, c. 1893 (via Wikimedia)

    The date of that arrival is still open: the founding clan could have migrated centuries before the first known Piast, Mieszko I (who died in 992), or perhaps only a generation earlier through a dynastic marriage. Either way, the new data kill the notion of an unbroken local male lineage.

    Yet genetics also shows deep local continuity in the wider population. A separate survey of Iron Age cemeteries across Poland, published in Scientific Reports, revealed that people living 2,000 years ago already shared the genetic makeup seen in early Piast subjects.

    Another project that sequenced pre-Piast burials drew the same conclusion: local Poles were part of the broader continental gene pool stretching from Denmark to France.

    In short, even if the Piasts were exotic rulers, they governed a long-established community.

    A swamp tells its tale

    While the DNA work progressed, another Poznań team dug into the history of the local environment via samples from the peaty floor of Lake Lednica near Poznań, the island-ringed stronghold often dubbed the cradle of the Piast realm.

    Their study of buried pollen, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows an abrupt switch in the 9th century: oak and lime pollen plummet, while cereal and pasture indicators soar. Traces of charcoal and soot point to widespread fires.

    The authors call the shift an “ecological revolution”, driven by slash-and-burn agriculture and the need to feed concentrated garrisons of soldiers guarding local trade routes carrying amber and slaves.

    Modelling boom and bust

    Using this environmental data, historians and complexity scientists constructed a feedback model of population, silver paid as tribute to rulers, and fort-building. As fields expanded, tributes rose; as tributes rose, chiefs could hire more labour to clear more forest and build forts.

    The model reproduces the startling build-out of ramparts at Poznań, Giecz and Gniezno around 990. It also predicts collapse once the silver stopped flowing.

    Pollen data indeed show the woodlands recovered to some extent after 1070, while archaeological surveys record abandoned hamlets and shrinking garrisons.

    The early Piast state rode a resource boom as the Piasts controlled part of the amber and slave trade routes that linked the shores of the Baltic Sea to Rome.

    The impact of Mieszko’s conversion to Christianity on that lucrative trade remains subject to scholarly debate.

    Reconciling foreigners and locals

    How do these strands fit together? Evidence of a Scottish man in the Piast paternal line does not necessarily imply a foreign conquest. Dynasties spread by marriages as well as by swords.

    For example, Świętosława (the sister of the first Piast king, Bolesław the Brave), married the kings of both Denmark and Sweden, and her descendants ruled England for a time. The networks of Europe’s nobility were highly mobile.

    Conversely, the stable genetic profile of ordinary folk suggests that, whoever sat on the ducal bench, most people remained where their grandparents had farmed.

    The broader research engine

    None of this work happens in isolation. Poland’s National Science Centre has bankrolled a 24-person team across archaeology, palaeoecology and bioinformatics since 2014, generating 16 peer-reviewed papers and a public database of ancient genomes.

    Conferences at Lednica and Dziekanowice now bring historians and molecular biologists to the same table. The methodological pay-off is clear: Polish labs can now process their own ancient DNA rather than exporting it to Copenhagen or Leipzig.

    What still puzzles researchers

    Three questions remain. First, does that British-leaning male line really start with a Pict? The closest known match to the Piasts may change as new burials are sequenced.

    Second, how many commoners carried the same genetic variant? Spot samples from Kowalewko and Brzeg hint that it was rare among locals, but the data set is small.

    Third, why did the silver dry up so fast? Numismatists suspect a shift in Viking routes after 1000 AD, yet the matter is far from settled.

    A balanced verdict

    Taken together, the evidence paints a nuanced picture. The Piasts were probably not ethnic Slavs in the strict paternal sense, yet they ruled, and soon resembled, an overwhelmingly Slavic realm.

    Their meteoric rise owed less to outsider brilliance than to the chance alignment of fertile soils, cheap labour, and an export boom in amber and captives.

    As geneticists conduct more DNA sequencing of remains, such as those of princes in crypts at Kraków’s Wawel castle, and palaeoecologists push their lakebed pollen samples back to 7th century, we can expect further surprises.

    Darius von Guttner Sporzynski receives funding from the National Science Centre, Poland as a partner investigator in the grant ‘The “Chronicle of the Poles” by Bishop Vincentius of Cracow also known as Kadłubek. First critical Latin-English Edition.’ (2022/47/B/HS3/00931).

    – ref. Were the first kings of Poland actually from Scotland? New DNA evidence unsettles a nation’s founding myth – https://theconversation.com/were-the-first-kings-of-poland-actually-from-scotland-new-dna-evidence-unsettles-a-nations-founding-myth-258579

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kaine Statement on Pentagon Review of AUKUS

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and Ranking Member of the SASC Subcommittee on Seapower, released the following statement after it was reported that the Department of Defense has launched a review of the Australia-U.K.-U.S. (AUKUS) submarine deal:

    “The Australia-U.K.-U.S. agreement, which I’ve been a strong supporter of, is critical to ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific. If this Administration is serious about countering the threat from China—like it has said as recently as this morning—then it will work expeditiously with our partners in Australia and the U.K. to strengthen this agreement and ensure we are taking steps to further boost our submarine industrial base. Anything less would play directly into China’s hand.”

    Kaine has played a key role in securing more resources for the submarine industrial base, including additional funding for the Virginia-class submarine program that is currently facing significant delays because of workforce challenges and supply chain disruptions. The on-time completion of Virginia-class submarines, which are built in Virginia and Connecticut, is critical to fulfilling the AUKUS partnership, through which the U.S. will sell at least two Virginia-class submarines to Australia to boost security and freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific, and counter Chinese military aggression in the region. Kaine has been a strong champion of AUKUS in Congress and has helped get signed into law provisions to implement and strengthen the partnership.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: During hearing with Treasury Secretary, Kelly highlights importance of passing “One Big Beautiful Bill”

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — During a Ways & Means Committee hearing featuring U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday in Washington, U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) highlighted the importance of passing the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” in order to avoid a tax increase on American families and small businesses.

    “Current tax rates are set to expire at the end of the year. If we don’t pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, hardworking American taxpayers would see their taxes increase. We cannot let that happen,” said Rep. Kelly. “This legislation makes tax cuts permanent and creates much-needed certainty for American families and small businesses.”

    “The One Big Beautiful Bill will make the 2017 tax cuts permanent. This will provide individuals and businesses with certainty and build economic momentum. The legislation is squarely aimed at boosting the working and middle class and reinvigorating American manufacturing,” said Sec. Bessent in prepared remarks.

    You can watch a clip of Rep. Kelly’s exchange with Sec. Bessent here.

    BACKGROUND

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act makes permanent the successful 2017 Trump tax cuts and includes critical pro-growth policies that will cut taxes by an additional $1,300 for a family of four and deliver higher wages and incomes for millions of Americans. A recent report from the Council of Economic Advisers shows the legislation will produce up to $13,300 more in take-home pay for a typical family and up to $11,600 more in wages for American workers.

    The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Is Pro-Growth Tax Policy
    Permanent extension of the Trump tax cuts, alongside additional pro-growth policies, will fuel a resurgence in economic growth:

    • America’s real gross domestic product (GDP) to increase by an estimated 5.2 percent over the next four years and 3.5 percent in the long term.
    • 9.8 to 14.5 percent boost in investment in the next four years and a 4.9 to 7.5 percent boost in long-term investment.
    • 6.6 to 7.4 million full-time jobs saved or created in the next four years and 4.2 million saved or created in the long term.

    FACT SHEET: The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Fuels America’s Economic Growth

    The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Makes Families & Workers Thrive Again

    • Makes the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent – protecting the average taxpayer from a 22 percent tax hike.
    • Saves the average American family from a $1,700 tax hike – the equivalent of 9 weeks of groceries.
    • Delivers an additional $1,300 tax cut for the average American family.
      — Delivers up to $11,600 in higher wages per worker.
      — Delivers up to $13,300 more in take-home pay for a family with two children.
    • Delivers on President Trump’s priorities of no tax on tips, overtime pay, car loan interest, and tax relief for seniors that will put more money annually in the pockets of millions of Americans:
      — Up to $1,750 for overtime workers.
      — $1,700 for tipped workers.
      — Up to $450 for seniors.
    • Locks in and boosts the doubled Child Tax Credit for more than 40 million families and provides additional tax relief for American families.
    • Preserves and increases the doubled guaranteed deduction for 91 percent of all taxpayers.
    • Expands 529 education savings accounts to empower American families and students to choose the education that best fits their needs, whether it is K-12 materials or obtaining a postsecondary trades credential.
    • Supports working families by expanding access to childcare and making permanent the paid leave tax credit.
    • Puts American families in control of their health care by expanding health savings accounts and cementing into law a Trump Administration policy that offers more choice and flexibility for health coverage options.
    • Starts building financial security for America’s children at birth with the creation of new savings accounts.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Case Opposed Proposed Funding Bill That Shortchanges Critical Military Infrastructure Needs In Hawaii, The Indo-Pacific and NATO

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ed Case (Hawai‘i – District 1)

    (Washington, DC) – U.S. Congressman Ed Case (HI-01), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, early this morning voted against the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations funding measure.

    The measure (MILCON-VA) would fund worldwide military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and various small agencies and programs supporting our nation’s some 19 million veterans, including some 112,000 throughout Hawai‘i, and their families.

    The bill is the first of twelve separate bills developed by the Appropriations Committee that would fund the federal government at some $1.6 trillion for FY 2026 commencing October 1st of this year.

    “While the measure does have positive provisions including funding for essential veterans programs, I regrettably had to vote against it because it kicks critical military infrastructure projects down the road yet again, pursues the Project 2025 goal of privatizing VA medical care, shortchanges dedicated funding for Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) cleanup, eliminates climate resiliency efforts and excludes important VA infrastructure funding,” said Case, who is in his seventh year on Appropriations and previously served on the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs for four years. He currently serves on its Subcommittees on Defense and Homeland Security. 

    Case spoke to his Appropriations Committee colleagues on the serious deficiencies in the bill that fail to address critical military infrastructure needs throughout the Indo-Pacific (speech here). He stated that only one milcon project is located in the Indo-Pacific despite critical needs in meeting the challenge of the People’s Republic of China. The bill also fails to provide funding for infrastructure in Europe to support U.S. servicemembers working to bolster NATO and deter Russia.

    Case further said that the funding measure specifically advances the privatization of veterans health care by proposing vastly larger increases for medical care provided in private sector compared to shorfunding the government’s VA healthcare system, a key goal of the Project 2025 plan being followed by the Trump administration. By vast margins, veterans oppose privatizing the VA and want to receive their medical care at VA clinics and hospitals with a direct mission to care for veterans and their families as opposed to the private sector.

    Despite these and other significant problems with the bill, Case highlighted positive provisions he requested, including fully funding the budget request for veterans’ medical care at $131.4 billion and for veterans’ toxic exposures-related needs under the PACT Act.

    It also includes $1.3 billion for specific care for women veterans, and supports the Office of Women’s Health, including its childcare initiative. These funds will allow the VA to continue hiring women primary care providers and to increase the number of peer support specialists for women veterans. These efforts have become even more critical as the number of female veterans using VA health care services has increased.  

    “Women veterans often require specialized care due to unique health needs stemming from their military service and gender,” said Case. “With sustained support from my Committee over multiple years, Congress is working to ensure the VA set the standard for women veterans care, ensuring consistent, high-quality services across all facilities.” 

    The measure also continues support as Case requested for the VA Center for Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander and United States-affiliated Pacific Islander (NHPIUSAPI) Veterans. The center’s doctors and scientists coordinate research from all over the Pacific Islands and the United States to specifically address veterans’ healthcare in the Hawaiian Islands and throughout the Pacific. The center works with the University of Hawai‘i, and the bill encourages the VA to continue partnering with universities in the Pacific region focusing on issues unique to the NHPIUSAPI community. 

    Further details follow: 

    Veterans-Related Programs 

    The bill provides $133.7 billion in discretionary spending for veterans-related programs, an increase of $4.7 billion above the FY 2025 enacted level 

    “Our Hawai‘i veterans and their families make up one of the largest percentages of any state in our nation including in such key areas like women and minority veterans. I continued to focus especially on the often unique challenges of delivering full veterans’ health and other benefits in a diverse island state,” said Case.

    Specific veterans-related programs and provisions requested and secured by Case include:

    ·        $12 million for the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program, which is $6 million above the FY 2025 level. 

    ·        Contracting preferences for Native Hawaiian owned business that work with the VA. 

    ·        Directing the VA to continue supporting the VA Center for NHPIUSAPI Veterans.

    ·         $1.5 million for a pilot project using the most advanced technology to identify the remains of unidentified fallen servicemembers buried at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific.  

    ·        Directing the VA to develop a plan for more fully providing VA benefits for veterans living in the Freely Associated States. 

    ·         $106 million for the American Battle Monument Commission, which manages the Honolulu Memorial at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific. 

    ·        $60 million for the VA Grants for the Construction of Veterans Cemeteries Program, which regularly provides fundings to support Hawaii’s state cemeteries. 

    ·        $233 million for substance-use disorder (SUD) efforts to ensure veterans can receive timely SUD specialty services. 

    ·        $3.4 billion for the Veterans’ Homelessness Program Resources Account for our nation’s veterans. This funding will enhance homeless veterans service providers ability to provide high demand care such as health services, substance use disorder programs, compensated work therapy and other supportive services.   

    ·        $342 million for Rural Health Initiatives, $5 million above FY 2025 level. This will improve access and quality of care for the more than 3 million enrolled veterans residing in highly rural areas.  

    Military Construction 

    The bill provides $453.6 billion for Department of Defense (DoD) military construction and family housing, $480 million above the FY 2025 enacted level.  

    Specific military construction programs and provisions requested and secured by Case critical to Hawai‘i include:  

    ·          $634 million for the Energy Resiliency and Conservation Investment Program, which funds projects that save energy and water, reduce DoD energy costs and improve energy resilience. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to identify the Army’s investment needs in order to support the wildland firefighters located on Schofield Barracks.   

    ·         Directing the DoD to provide a report on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam infrastructure development plan, to address ongoing concerns of the aging water and wastewater facilities on the installation. 

    ·          Directing the DoD to assess the aging infrastructure that houses the headquarters of the Marine Corps, Space Force and Special Operations Commands on O‘ahu. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to assess the requirement for a floating drydock at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility.

    ·         Directing the DoD to assess the capacity for battle damage repair of all public shipyards and how to prepare these shipyards for conflict requirements under the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP). SIOP is a multi-billion multi-year effort to upgrade the Navy’s four public shipyards, including Pearl Harbor. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to assess the infrastructure needs and shortfalls for 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment on Marine Corps Base Hawai‘i.  

    ·         Directing the DoD to study the impacts of unexploded ordnance on military construction sites in Guam. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to study the necessary steps and what actions would be required to begin construction on port improvements on Tinian Island. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to study the necessity and feasibility of establishing a biosecurity inspection facility to combat invasive species on the Northern Mariana Islands. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to study the impact and develop a plan to address growing solid waste management issues on Tinian Island.  

    The bill now moves to the full House of Representatives for its consideration.  

    A summary of the VA-MilCon funding bill is available here. The committee report explaining the full bill in detail is available here. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –