Category: Australia

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Director General David Cheng-Wei Wu and Mrs. Wu Joined the Learning Delights Book Club’s Urban Exploration Event

    Source: Republic of China Taiwan

    Director General David Cheng-Wei Wu and Mrs. Wu were delighted to join the Learning Delights Book Club’s urban exploration event, engaging with the street art of Sydney’s Inner West.
    Not to be outshone by Melbourne’s famous street art, Sydney’s Inner West is also a vibrant hub of creativity and culture. Suburbs like St Peters, Newtown, and Enmore each showcase a unique character through a wide range of mural styles.
    Why not take a leisurely stroll here over the weekend? You’ll discover a whole new side of Sydney — full of character-filled cafés, eateries, and charming indie shops.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI China: Walaza crowned in 100m, USA claim 4 more swimming golds at Universiade

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

    Bayanda Walaza sprinted to the men’s 100m title to give South Africa its third gold medal at the Rhine-Ruhr World University Games, while Team USA continued to dominate the swimming pool with four more golds on Tuesday night.

    The Paris 2024 Olympian and world junior champion crossed the line in 10.16 seconds, edging Thailand’s Puripol Boonson (10.22), the same rival he beat at last year’s under-20 global competition in Peru. Asian champion Hiroki Yanagita finished third, just 0.01 seconds behind Boonson.

    “I feel glorified. I believe in winning. As soon as I was on that [start] line, I was looking at that finish line. My mind was there. I need to cross it before everyone,” said Walaza, who, at just 18, ran the leadoff leg in the men’s 4x100m relay final to help South Africa claim silver at Paris 2024.

    Ai Yanhan (3rd L) of China competes during the women’s 200m freestyle final of swimming at the Rhine-Ruhr 2025 FISU World University Games in Berlin, Germany, July 22, 2025. (Xinhua/Du Zheyu)

    Walaza became just the ninth South African to break the 10-second barrier in the 100m when he clocked 9.94 in Zagreb in May. Weeks earlier, he set a national junior record of 20.08 in the 200m.

    Australia’s Georgia Harris won the women’s 100m in 11.44, ahead of Poland’s Magdalena Stefanowicz (11.49) and South Africa’s Gabriella Marais (11.51).

    Germany claimed a one-two finish in the men’s discus, with Mika Sosna winning gold with a throw of 64.26 meters and Steven Richter taking silver at 61.77. Ukraine’s Mykhailo Brudin posted a season-best 60.71 to earn bronze.

    The women’s long jump podium was separated by just three centimeters. Portugal’s Agate Sousa leaped 6.60 meters, two centimeters ahead of China’s Asian Games champion Xiong Shiqi, who finished one centimeter ahead of Spain’s Natalia Gonzalez.

    “It’s a pity to miss the top place by just two centimeters,” said Xiong, who earned China’s first athletics medal at the Games. “But the result is compatible with my capability and my expectation. I want to inspire my teammates in the upcoming track and field competitions with this very first medal in the stadium for China.”

    Swedish Olympian Axelina Johansson won the women’s shot put with a throw of 18.45 meters. American top qualifier Abria Smith followed with 17.38, while South Africa’s Colette Uys claimed bronze at 17.34, narrowly ahead of compatriot Mine de Klerk by one centimeter.

    Seven finals were contested in the pool, with Team USA winning four. The American men continued their relay dominance with a record-breaking win in the 4x200m freestyle, finishing in 7:04.51 to break the previous Games mark of 7:05.49 set by Russia in 2013.

    Cavan Gormsen surged from eighth to first on the back half of the women’s 200m freestyle, winning gold for the U.S. in 1:57.21. She closed the final 50 meters in 29.13 to pass three swimmers and edge China’s Ai Yanhan by 0.3 seconds.

    Leah Shackley broke her own day-old meet record to win the women’s 50m backstroke in 27.31 seconds, trimming 0.3 off her semifinal time of 27.66.

    In the women’s 200m individual medley, another American, Leah Hayes, won gold in 2:09.48, improving on her Games record from the semifinal.

    Competing as a neutral athlete, Aleksandr Stepanov won his second freestyle distance title of the meet with victory in the men’s 800m in 7:46.51, finishing nearly four seconds ahead of Italy’s Tommaso Griffante.

    Italy’s Gianmarco Sansone claimed gold in the men’s 100m butterfly with a personal-best 51.40. Germany’s Bjorn Kammann finished second in 51.70, followed by Uzbekistan’s Eldorbek Usmonov (51.84).

    Federico Rizzardi earned Italy’s second gold of the session, winning the men’s 50m breaststroke in 27.14, nearly 0.2 seconds ahead of the field.

    In diving, China’s Zhang Wenao won gold in the men’s 1m springboard with 425.85 points, followed by teammate Hu Yukang (368.75). Germany’s Tim Axur took bronze with 354.80.

    South Korea claimed its fifth fencing gold by edging France 45-43 in the women’s sabre team event. Italy secured its third fencing title with a commanding 45-20 win over Poland in the men’s foil team final.

    The top three on the medal table remained unchanged after the sixth day of competition. The U.S. leads with 21 golds (20 in swimming), 12 silvers and 20 bronzes, followed by China (12-17-4) and South Korea (11-5-13). Host Germany sits fourth with seven golds, six silvers and eight bronzes. 

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-Evening Report: View from The Hill: Nationals’ mavericks ensure the Coalition is the issue in parliament’s first week

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    For almost as long anyone can remember, the Nationals have caused the Coalition grief on climate and energy policy. Still, for Barnaby Joyce to bring on a fresh load of trouble – with a private member’s bill to scrap Australia’s commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 – in Sussan Ley’s first parliamentary week as opposition leader was beyond provocative.

    And for Michael McCormack to support him reinforced the impression the Nationals don’t give a fig about the wider interests of a Coalition confronting very dark days.

    The bill will go nowhere but the issue will tear at the opposition.

    Both Joyce and McCormack are former leaders, and they are former rivals. In 2021 Joyce overthrew McCormack as leader. McCormack used to be a supporter of net zero. Joyce, a deputy prime minister, did a deal with then prime minister Scott Morrison for the Nationals to back net zero before Morrison went to the Glasgow COP conference in 2021. The Nationals are their own game of snakes and ladders.

    Now Joyce says he never supported the net zero target – which is sort of correct, because his own position during that deal (involving the trade off of promised huge infrastructure spending) was near impossible to fathom.

    On why stir the issue in the first parliamentary week, Joyce says, “Now is the time, when the agenda has not been set”.

    McCormack says he supported net zero in 2021 because Australia was suffering the trade restrictions imposed by China and needed to expand its exports to Europe, where many countries required the commitment. The farmers in his Riverina electorate wanted him to support it, he says.

    Despite disclaimers, this undermines the authority of Nationals leader David Littleproud, already weakened by the events around the temporary split in the Coalition after the election. The Nationals obtained their several policy demands (that didn’t relate to net zero) but Littleproud came in for a good deal of criticism.

    The Nationals are split over net zero, but it is looking increasingly difficult for those who want to preserve the commitment to hold the line. Joyce says he hopes the numbers are there in the party room to ditch it, and he suspects they are but “I don’t know”. McCormack believes the numbers are there.

    While Littleproud says he is waiting for the party’s own review, under net zero opponent senator Matt Canavan, he suggested the net zero commitment was “trying to achieve the impossible rather than doing what’s sensible”.

    The Liberals are divided too, but those wanting to end the commitment are in a minority. Former frontbencher Jane Hume spoke out on Wednesday, stressing how important the commitment was. “Over and over, the electorate has told us that they want to see a net zero energy future,” she told Sky. “My personal opinion is that this is profoundly important for not just the electorate, but also for our country.”

    But if the Nationals repudiated the net zero target, that would embolden the Liberal critics and probably add to their number. It would drive a wedge into the Coalition, and might be serious enough to split it.

    The Ley critics within the Liberals won’t be shedding any tears over the damage, now and later, that this issue will do her. Neither will Littleproud – it’s well known the two are not close.

    Ley herself can only say the opposition has a working group looking at energy and emissions reduction policy. But she knows this is simply a holding position. It’s impossible to think that the working group, headed by energy spokesman Dan Tehan, can come up with any policy position that unites two diametrically opposed positions.

    Tehan said of Joyce and McCormack, “They’re two steers fighting in the neighbour’s paddock”. The flaw with this dismissal is that the steers are actually part of the broad Coalition herd.

    In the first question time of the new parliament, the opposition wasn’t able to score any hits on the government. The prime minister and other ministers were able to shrug off questions about Labor’s proposed tax on unrealised capital gains on big superannuation balances, and other issues. Energy Minister Chris Bowen had been handed ammunition to deploy against the opposition.

    The overwhelming message of the day was that the opposition had made itself the issue. From the Coalition’s point of view, the problem is this damaging conversation will go on a long time.

    Michelle Grattan 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. View from The Hill: Nationals’ mavericks ensure the Coalition is the issue in parliament’s first week – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-nationals-mavericks-ensure-the-coalition-is-the-issue-in-parliaments-first-week-261099

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Childcare centres will have funding stripped if they’re not ‘up to scratch’. Is this enough?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Harper, Lecturer, School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney

    Maskot/Getty Images

    Childcare centres will lose their eligibility for fee subsidies if they don’t meet safety standards, according to a new bill introduced to parliament on Wednesday.

    As Education Minister Jason Clare told parliament:

    it will give us the power to cut off funding to childcare centres that aren’t up to scratch.

    The bill follows recent allegations a Victorian childcare worker abused children in his care. There have also been allegations of abuse in centres in New South Wales and Queensland. Labor has warned lower house MPs it can expect late nights next week, to try to get this bill and the governments’ plan to cut HELP debts through parliament.

    What’s in the bill? What does it mean for families? And what’s missing?

    What’s in the bill?

    Clare told parliament the federal government’s childcare subsidy currently covers about 70% of the average cost of running a centre.

    This legislation gives the federal education department the power to suspend or cancel that funding if a centre “is not meeting the quality, safety and other compliance requirements,” according to the national system of early childhood regulation.

    The department could also stop a childcare operator from opening a new service if there are problems with existing services.

    It applies to all types of early childhood services from daycare centres to family daycare, and also before and after school care.

    The federal education department will also have new powers to do spot checks in services (this is on top of state authorities who can already do checks).

    There are strong, new measures

    It is positive to see strengthened measures to take a providers’ track record into account before saying “yes you can open another service”. This is a slightly more proactive measure, in addition to punishments for services that do not comply.

    We are also seeing more transparency. The bill will provide new powers to publicise when a provider is refused approval for a new service.

    It can also publish other compliance action taken against providers, such as when conditions are applied – and the details of those conditions. Or if a fine has been imposed.

    This means families and the broader public – including any shareholders – will also be more aware of what is going on in childcare services.

    Is this enough?

    While the Coalition and the Greens are broadly supportive of the bill, they also want to see further changes.

    Clare told parliament the bill is not the only measure the federal government was making around childcare standards.

    State and federal education ministers are due to meet next month to discuss child safety. This includes a national register to track early childhood workers from centre to centre, mandatory “child safety training”, CCTV for centres and other recommendations from the recent Wheeler review on the NSW early childhood sector.

    Attorneys general will also meet next month to discuss how to improve working with children checks.




    Read more:
    What are working with children checks? Why aren’t they keeping kids safe at daycare?


    What about the impact on families?

    We also need to think about the practical consequences of the bill. If the childcare subsidy was removed from any service – whether they are private or not-for-profit – they would quickly become unviable.

    Without the subsidy (which reduces out-of-pocket costs for parents), many families would not be able to afford childcare.

    If a service is going to have access to the subsidy taken away, how much notice should families get? These details need thoughtful consideration.

    If the federal education department is going to have a team of people doing checks on services, we also need to ask, how will this work? How quickly will they be able to do these checks? One of the issues with the current system is there are long delays between assessments. This suggests it will need careful planning and it will also cost some money.

    The bigger picture

    Beyond these questions, there is the bigger picture of childcare quality in Australia. The system is complex but people who educate and care for children are at the heart of it.

    My recent research has revealed educators are only spending 30% of their time on undistracted and uninterrupted time with children. This is due to the heavy and sometimes competing demands of their work, including administrative and cleaning duties. Educators say this diminishes their capacity to provide quality education and care.

    Heavy and distracting workloads, along with widespread reports of understaffing and breaches to minimum staff-to-child ratios, makes it difficult for educators to keep children safe.

    So meaningful reform must consider educators’ experiences, and include strategies to increase support for educators to do their jobs well.

    Erin Harper 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. Childcare centres will have funding stripped if they’re not ‘up to scratch’. Is this enough? – https://theconversation.com/childcare-centres-will-have-funding-stripped-if-theyre-not-up-to-scratch-is-this-enough-261761

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI: Dentsu Expands Partnership with Magnite to Streamline CTV and Video Activation Across EMEA

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LONDON, July 23, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Magnite (NASDAQ: MGNI), the largest independent sell-side advertising company, has announced a strategic partnership with dentsu in EMEA to accelerate innovation and performance across the media supply chain. Dentsu is tapping into Magnite’s built-for-video tools and technology to power dentsu Total TV and support its ambition to lead in the “Algorithmic Era” of advertising, where interoperability, automation and outcome-driven planning are key.

    Across multiple EMEA markets, including Spain and the UK, the Magnite SpringServe video platform is empowering dentsu with more efficient, data-rich connections to inventory, enabling them to curate premium media experiences with greater precision, transparency and scale. From video and CTV to emerging formats, the partnership reflects a shared commitment to evolving how media is deployed and optimised, with client performance at the centre.

    “Our relationship with dentsu is a great example of how technology and collaboration can unlock real value,” said Julie Selman, SVP, Head of EMEA at Magnite. “We’re proud to support dentsu’s vision for the future by providing the tools and insights needed to deliver stronger results and a more efficient media experience for clients and publishers alike.”

    “In this new era of advertising, media must work harder, smarter and faster,” said Ben Angove, President, Amplifi EMEA & Chief Strategy Officer, Amplifi Global at dentsu. “At dentsu, we are committed to building Next Gen media solutions in partnership with best-in-class technologies that ultimately enable our clients to win and grow in the Algorithmic Era. Our partnership with Magnite gives us the tools to do just that – connecting the right data with the right inventory to drive better results for our clients across the region.”

    Magnite’s technology plays a key role in helping dentsu move beyond transactional media buying, towards a more curated, high-performance approach. The collaboration helps dentsu gain greater visibility and control of their media buys, enabling more intelligent decision-making and unlocking new opportunities for optimisation across the media ecosystem.

    Press contact
    Paige Brewer, Account Executive, Bluestripe Group
    magnite@bluestripegroup.co.uk

    About Magnite
    We’re Magnite (NASDAQ: MGNI), the world’s largest independent sell-side advertising company. Publishers use our technology to monetize their content across all screens and formats including CTV, online video, display, and audio. The world’s leading agencies and brands trust our platform to access brand-safe, high-quality ad inventory and execute billions of advertising transactions each month. Anchored in bustling New York City, sunny Los Angeles, mile high Denver, historic London, colorful Singapore, and down under in Sydney, Magnite has offices across North America, EMEA, LATAM, and APAC.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: 21Shares Partners with Societe Generale to Expand Institutional Access to Crypto ETPs in Europe

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Societe Generale to act as market maker for 21Shares’ Bitcoin and Ethereum ETPs on key German and Eastern Europe fund platforms, expanding institutional access to crypto

    Zurich, 23 July 2025 – 21Shares AG, one of the world’s leading issuers of cryptocurrency exchange-traded products (ETPs), is pleased to announce it has entered into an ETP market making fund platform agreement with Societe Generale, a leading institutional player in exchange traded products, to enhance liquidity across 21Shares ETPs on fund platforms for investors in Germany and Eastern Europe.

    As part of the agreement, Societe Generale will support the trading of 21Shares’ Bitcoin and Ethereum ETPs (ABTC, CBTC, AETH, CETH) by providing over-the-counter liquidity on key fund platforms in Germany and Eastern Europe. These platforms, typically operated by major financial institutions, serve as critical infrastructure for institutional trading. By joining these platforms, where Societe Generale acts as a market maker, 21Shares’ flagship crypto products will now be accessible to a wider base of professional investors, expanding institutional reach across Germany and Eastern Europe.

    “We are thrilled to partner with Societe Generale, a major player in the European ETF space, as we continue to expand access to our ETPs,” said Alistair Byas-Perry, Global Head of Capital Markets & EMEA Investment at 21Shares. “By bringing liquidity to our Bitcoin and Ethereum ETPs, Societe Generale is helping us advance our mission to deliver the most efficient and trusted crypto investment solutions to the market.”

    “Societe Generale is excited to partner with 21Shares, a leading provider of cryptocurrency ETPs, to support the trading of their Bitcoin and Ethereum ETPs on fund platforms. This marks a significant milestone in our commitment to providing innovative liquidity solutions and enhancing access to a wide range of ETFs and ETPs for our clients,” said Martina Schroettle, Head of ETF Sales Trading UK at Societe Generale.

    The partnership is expected to enhance liquidity, execution quality, and ease of access for German and Eastern European institutional investors navigating the digital asset market.

    For more information on 21Shares’ full product suite, visit www.21shares.com.

    Notes to editors

    About 21Shares

    21Shares is one of the world’s leading cryptocurrency exchange traded product providers and offers the largest suite of crypto ETPs in the market. The company was founded to make cryptocurrency more accessible to investors, and to bridge the gap between traditional finance and decentralized finance. 21Shares listed the world’s first physically-backed crypto ETP in 2018, building a seven-year track record of creating crypto exchange-traded funds that are listed on some of the biggest, most liquid securities exchanges globally. Backed by a specialised research team, proprietary technology, and deep capital markets expertise, 21Shares delivers innovative, simple and cost-efficient investment solutions.

    21Shares is a member of 21.co, a global leader in decentralized finance. For more information, please visit www.21Shares.com.

    Media Contact
    Matteo Valli
    matteo.valli@21shares.com

    DISCLAIMER

    This document is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy or subscribe for securities of 21Shares AG in any jurisdiction. Neither this document nor anything contained herein shall form the basis of, or be relied upon in connection with, any offer or commitment whatsoever or for any other purpose in any jurisdiction. Nothing in this document should be considered investment advice.

    This document and the information contained herein are not for distribution in or into (directly or indirectly) the United States, Canada, Australia or Japan or any other jurisdiction in which the distribution or release would be unlawful.

    This document does not constitute an offer of securities for sale in or into the United States, Canada, Australia or Japan. The securities of 21Shares AG to which these materials relate have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the registration requirements of the Securities Act. There will not be a public offering of securities in the United States. Neither the US Securities and Exchange Commission nor any securities regulatory authority of any state or other jurisdiction of the United States has approved or disapproved of an investment in the securities or passed on the accuracy or adequacy of the contents of this presentation. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offence in the United States.

    Within the United Kingdom, this document is only being distributed to and is only directed at: (i) to investment professionals falling within Article 19(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 (the “Order”); or (ii) high net worth entities, and other persons to whom it may lawfully be communicated, falling within Article 49(2)(a) to (d) of the Order (all such persons together being referred to as “relevant persons”); or (iii) persons who fall within Article 43(2) of the Order, including existing members and creditors of the Company or (iv) any other persons to whom this document can be lawfully distributed in circumstances where section 21(1) of the FSMA does not apply. The securities are only available to, and any invitation, offer or agreement to subscribe, purchase or otherwise acquire such securities will be engaged in only with, relevant persons. Any person who is not a relevant person should not act or rely on this document or any of its contents.

    Exclusively for potential investors in any EEA Member State that has implemented the Prospectus Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 the Issuer’s Base Prospectus (EU) is made available on the Issuer’s website under www.21Shares.com.

    The approval of the Issuer’s Base Prospectus (EU) should not be understood as an endorsement by the SFSA of the securities offered or admitted to trading on a regulated market. Eligible potential investors should read the Issuer’s Base Prospectus (EU) and the relevant Final Terms before making an investment decision in order to understand the potential risks associated with the decision to invest in the securities. You are about to purchase a product that is not simple and may be difficult to understand.

    This document constitutes advertisement within the meaning of the Prospectus Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 and the Swiss Financial Services Act (the “FinSA”) and not a prospectus. The 2024 Base Prospectus of 21Shares AG has been deposited pursuant to article 54(2) FinSA with BX Swiss AG in its function as Swiss prospectus review body within the meaning of article 52 FinSA. The 2024 Base Prospectus and the key information document for any products may be obtained at 21Shares AG’s website (https://21shares.com/ir/prospectus or https://21shares.com/ir/kids).

    ###

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: RIBER: 2025 FIRST-HALF BUSINESS – FULL-YEAR REVENUES EXPECTED TO EXCEED €40M

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    2025 FIRST-HALF BUSINESS

    FULL-YEAR REVENUES EXPECTED TO EXCEED €40M

    Bezons, July 23, 2025 – 8:00am – RIBER, the global leader in Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE) equipment for the semiconductor industry, reports its revenues for the first half of 2025.

    Business developments

    At June 30 (€m) 2025 2024 Change
    Systems 7.8 9.4 -17%
    Services and accessories 3.0 4.3 -31%
    Total half-year revenues 10.7 13.7 -22%

    In a complex international environment, RIBER continues to demonstrate the resilience of its business model and the appeal of its technology offering.

    The Company reiterates that its business activity is subject to seasonal trends, with revenue structurally lower in the first half of the year.

    As of June 30, 2025, first-half revenues amounted to €10.7m, down 22% compared with the same period in 2024.

    Systems revenues totaled €7.8m, down 17%, reflecting the delivery schedule agreed with customers for systems on order in 2025. This corresponds to the delivery of three machines, including two production systems, compared with three production systems in the same period last year.

    Revenues for services and accessories came to €3.0m, down 31%, primarily due to a temporary decline in research-related orders, particularly in the United States, against a backdrop of tighter budgets in universities and research laboratories.

    The geographical breakdown of half-year revenues was as follows: Europe (15%), Asia (70%) and North America (13%).

    Order book developments

    At June 30 (€m) 2025 2024 Change
    Systems 22.5 30.2 -25%
    Services and accessories 5.2 5.8 -11%
    Total order book 27.7 36.0 -23%

    Despite ongoing geopolitical tensions and regulatory constraints, RIBER maintained strong commercial momentum during the first half of 2025.
    The Company secured five new system orders, including the first order for ROSIE, its new 300 mm silicon photonics platform, which recently entered its industrialization phase.

    As of June 30, 2025, the systems order book stood at €22.5m, down 25% from the high base in the first half of 2024. It includes nine systems, of which six are production machines. This change is mainly due to the denial of two export licenses, representing €4m in unbooked orders, and longer license approval timelines, which delayed the booking of already-identified orders.

    The services and accessories order book is down 11% to €5.2m.

    Outlook

    RIBER anticipates an improvement in order intake during the second half of the year, driven by major global investment programs in the semiconductor industry.

    The Company also expects to benefit from the ramp-up of its ROSIE platform, a breakthrough technology in silicon-based integrated photonics. Following the signing of a strategic partnership with the Novo Nordisk Foundation Quantum Computing Programme (NQCP) and the first unit sale, RIBER aims to leverage growing interest from both research institutions and industrial players for solutions compatible with silicon fabrication lines.

    While short-term momentum in research-related services and accessories remains uncertain, the systems business is expected to remain broadly stable in 2025. These elements do not undermine the Company’s strong fundamentals.

    Given the current order book for delivery this year and the upcoming business opportunities, RIBER expects to generate full-year revenue of over €40m in 2025.

    Financial calendar

    First-half 2025 results will be published on September 25, 2025, before the start of trading.

    About RIBER

    Founded in 1964, RIBER is the global market leader for MBE – molecular beam epitaxy – equipment. It designs and produces equipment for the semiconductor industry and provides scientific and technical support for its clients (hardware and software), maintaining their equipment and optimizing their performance and output levels. Accelerating the performance of electronics, RIBER’s equipment performs an essential role in the development of advanced semiconductors that are used in numerous applications, from information technologies to photonics (lasers, sensors, etc.), 5G telecommunications networks and research, including quantum computing. RIBER is a BPI France-approved innovative company and is listed on the Euronext Growth Paris market (ISIN: FR0000075954).
    www.riber.com

    Contacts

    RIBER
    Annie Geoffroy | tel: +33 (0)1 39 96 65 00 | invest@riber.com

    ACTUS FINANCE & COMMUNICATION
    Cyril Combe | tel: +33 (0)1 53 67 36 36 | ccombe@actus.fr

    Attachment

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: RIBER: 2025 FIRST-HALF BUSINESS – FULL-YEAR REVENUES EXPECTED TO EXCEED €40M

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    2025 FIRST-HALF BUSINESS

    FULL-YEAR REVENUES EXPECTED TO EXCEED €40M

    Bezons, July 23, 2025 – 8:00am – RIBER, the global leader in Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE) equipment for the semiconductor industry, reports its revenues for the first half of 2025.

    Business developments

    At June 30 (€m) 2025 2024 Change
    Systems 7.8 9.4 -17%
    Services and accessories 3.0 4.3 -31%
    Total half-year revenues 10.7 13.7 -22%

    In a complex international environment, RIBER continues to demonstrate the resilience of its business model and the appeal of its technology offering.

    The Company reiterates that its business activity is subject to seasonal trends, with revenue structurally lower in the first half of the year.

    As of June 30, 2025, first-half revenues amounted to €10.7m, down 22% compared with the same period in 2024.

    Systems revenues totaled €7.8m, down 17%, reflecting the delivery schedule agreed with customers for systems on order in 2025. This corresponds to the delivery of three machines, including two production systems, compared with three production systems in the same period last year.

    Revenues for services and accessories came to €3.0m, down 31%, primarily due to a temporary decline in research-related orders, particularly in the United States, against a backdrop of tighter budgets in universities and research laboratories.

    The geographical breakdown of half-year revenues was as follows: Europe (15%), Asia (70%) and North America (13%).

    Order book developments

    At June 30 (€m) 2025 2024 Change
    Systems 22.5 30.2 -25%
    Services and accessories 5.2 5.8 -11%
    Total order book 27.7 36.0 -23%

    Despite ongoing geopolitical tensions and regulatory constraints, RIBER maintained strong commercial momentum during the first half of 2025.
    The Company secured five new system orders, including the first order for ROSIE, its new 300 mm silicon photonics platform, which recently entered its industrialization phase.

    As of June 30, 2025, the systems order book stood at €22.5m, down 25% from the high base in the first half of 2024. It includes nine systems, of which six are production machines. This change is mainly due to the denial of two export licenses, representing €4m in unbooked orders, and longer license approval timelines, which delayed the booking of already-identified orders.

    The services and accessories order book is down 11% to €5.2m.

    Outlook

    RIBER anticipates an improvement in order intake during the second half of the year, driven by major global investment programs in the semiconductor industry.

    The Company also expects to benefit from the ramp-up of its ROSIE platform, a breakthrough technology in silicon-based integrated photonics. Following the signing of a strategic partnership with the Novo Nordisk Foundation Quantum Computing Programme (NQCP) and the first unit sale, RIBER aims to leverage growing interest from both research institutions and industrial players for solutions compatible with silicon fabrication lines.

    While short-term momentum in research-related services and accessories remains uncertain, the systems business is expected to remain broadly stable in 2025. These elements do not undermine the Company’s strong fundamentals.

    Given the current order book for delivery this year and the upcoming business opportunities, RIBER expects to generate full-year revenue of over €40m in 2025.

    Financial calendar

    First-half 2025 results will be published on September 25, 2025, before the start of trading.

    About RIBER

    Founded in 1964, RIBER is the global market leader for MBE – molecular beam epitaxy – equipment. It designs and produces equipment for the semiconductor industry and provides scientific and technical support for its clients (hardware and software), maintaining their equipment and optimizing their performance and output levels. Accelerating the performance of electronics, RIBER’s equipment performs an essential role in the development of advanced semiconductors that are used in numerous applications, from information technologies to photonics (lasers, sensors, etc.), 5G telecommunications networks and research, including quantum computing. RIBER is a BPI France-approved innovative company and is listed on the Euronext Growth Paris market (ISIN: FR0000075954).
    www.riber.com

    Contacts

    RIBER
    Annie Geoffroy | tel: +33 (0)1 39 96 65 00 | invest@riber.com

    ACTUS FINANCE & COMMUNICATION
    Cyril Combe | tel: +33 (0)1 53 67 36 36 | ccombe@actus.fr

    Attachment

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-Evening Report: Time to ditch splitting the bill? Shouting a close friend could actually make you happier

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aimee E. Smith, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Net Zero Observatory, The University of Queensland

    Jose Calsina/Shutterstock

    When an outing calls for upfront payment, such as admission to the cinema, a play or a theme park, the question of who covers it can shape the tone before the fun even begins.

    Navigating payment with others – whether colleagues, close friends or new acquaintances – can be tricky and interrupt the social dynamic that makes shared experiences so valuable.

    Our new research, published in Psychology and Marketing, suggests the way you approach splitting upfront costs could have some surprising impacts.

    In some cases, despite the dent in your bank account, covering the full cost of an experience for yourself and someone else could actually make you happier.

    But this won’t always be the case. And it likely comes down to the different norms and expectations we have for different kinds of relationships.

    The experience economy

    When times are tough financially, psychology suggests people would prefer to spend their money on material goods rather than experiences.

    Yet despite ongoing cost-of-living pressures, there’s evidence to suggest many Australians are prioritising experiences.

    Experiences are often shared with other people.
    Tsuguliev/Shutterstock

    Experiences are not just services, but rather about creating memorable events. Compared with material goods, experiences are consistently linked to improved happiness.

    A big part of the benefit we derive from such experiences hinges on the fact that we share them with other people. Putting money towards experiences lets us spend time with other people and relate to them in ways just buying “stuff” often can’t match.

    So much so, that factors like who we go with, the quality of conversations an experience leads to, or the clarity we have about the other person’s interests can have as much of an effect on happiness as the experience content itself.

    In shared experiences, where money is unavoidable, how does “who pays” affect their well-being benefits? This is the question we posed in our latest research, coauthored with Belinda Barton and Natalina Zlatevska.

    Going to the movies

    We conducted three experiments with 2,640 people and presented them with a common scenario: they would be going to the cinema with either their best friend or a casual acquaintance.

    We told half of the participants they would split the cost (that is, pay only for their own admission). The other half were told they would cover the whole cost for both themselves and the other person. We then asked them how happy they would be with this purchase.

    Across the three studies, when participants were with their best friend, they reported they would be happier paying the full amount than they would be splitting the cost. In contrast, when participants were with an acquaintance, we found that how the cost was split had no effect on happiness.

    Could paying for someone else’s ticket actually make you happier?
    andresr/Getty

    The ‘close friends’ effect

    With closer friends, unlike acquaintances and strangers, we often have a different set of norms and expectations – especially surrounding reciprocity.

    Interactions with close friends usually follow “communal norms”. This is where people help each other based on care and need, without expecting something in return.

    On the other hand, interactions with strangers and acquaintances are more likely to follow “exchange norms”, which prioritise balance and direct repayment.

    In line with this, we found when participants were with their best friends, their expectations of repayment were lower than with acquaintances when they paid for them. Where participants had higher expectations of repayment, they noted they would be less happy.

    Other possibilities

    We also tested other ideas, such as whether who pays would affect how smooth the conversation felt or whether it created awkwardness in the dynamic.

    We also examined whether the payment felt like an investment in the relationship, or whether it made the other person think more positively of the participant.

    We found that none of these really changed depending on who paid and how close the two people were, so they didn’t seem to explain why paying for a close friend felt better.

    Instead, norms around reciprocity in different types of relationships can make paying feel more transactional than a kind gesture. This, in turn, affects how happy it makes us feel.

    So, should I spend all my money on my friends?

    While our research suggests paying for others can make you happier, we don’t recommend budgeting your life savings for this cause.

    We limited our experiments to inexpensive experiences (that is, the cinema). So, it’s unlikely paying for your friend’s 2026 Europe trip will bring you ultimate happiness.

    Also, if your friend already owes you money, you might expect them to pay you back sooner, and footing the bill again could start to wear thin on your happiness.

    Aimee E. Smith 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. Time to ditch splitting the bill? Shouting a close friend could actually make you happier – https://theconversation.com/time-to-ditch-splitting-the-bill-shouting-a-close-friend-could-actually-make-you-happier-261557

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • WI vs AUS, 2nd T20I: Ruthless Aussies deny Russell a winning farewell

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    West Indies stalwart Andre Russell was denied a winning farewell after Josh Inglis and Cameron Green smashed unbeaten half-centuries to secure Australia’s eight-wicket victory in the second Twenty20 International on Tuesday.

    Put into bat, West Indies managed 172-8 as opener Brandon King topscored with a breezy 51 and Russell smashed 36 off 15 balls in his final knock in international cricket.

    Australia’s Inglis (78) and Green (56) then pulverised the West Indies attack in an unbroken 131-run partnership to complete the chase in 15.2 overs, putting the tourists 2-0 ahead in the five-match series.

    West Indies did not help their own cause by spilling six catches.

    “I’m very grateful to end my career here playing in front of my own crowd, family and friends,” Russell said.

    “The result didn’t go my way, but at the end of the day, I’m happy, I’m grateful.

    “I wish the boys all the very best, and I wish them luck moving forward,” added the 37-year-old two-time World Cup winner.

    Australia sprang a surprise by asking Glenn Maxwell (12) to open the innings with skipper Mitchell Marsh (21) but the ploy did not pay off, both departing caught behind inside six overs.

    However, Inglis smashed five sixes in an unbeaten 33-ball blitz, while Green’s second successive fifty of the series included four of them.

    “I think I felt like I managed the tempo pretty well at times,” player of the match Inglis said.

    “After probably being a bit lucky early being dropped, I felt like I managed those middle periods really well with Greeny.

    “We sort of identified spin was going to be really tough to play on that wicket, so we sort of took our medicine there and went after the quicks.”

    Australia, who won the preceding test series 3-0, can clinch the series with a third successive victory in Basseterre on Saturday.

    -Reuters

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Transcript – ABC News Breakfast with James Glenday

    Source: Murray Darling Basin Authority

    JAMES GLENDAY: Next, we take you to Canberra and bring in the Federal Education Minister, Jason Clare, who is of course at Parliament House. He has a very big day. Responsible for a couple of key bits of legislation. Minister, welcome back to News Breakfast. 

    JASON CLARE, MINISTER FOR EDUCATION: Thanks, mate. Good morning. 

    GLENDAY: We’ve got a lot of policy to discuss, but I just wanted to ask you for your reflection first of all. What was it like going into Parliament yesterday and seeing the scale of your victory, all of those Labor MPs spilling out right to the other side of the chamber? 

    CLARE: Well, I guess it reminded me of the responsibility we’ve got. The Australian people have entrusted us with government and a very large majority. We’ve got a responsibility to be worthy of that trust and to pay that back with responsible government. And that’s what we’re determined to do. 

    GLENDAY: I couldn’t help but notice that the two women who beat both Peter Dutton and Adam Bandt got to deliver their maiden speeches first. They were lovely speeches. Watched them last night. Quite moving. Were the order of these speeches meant to send a bit of a message to your political opponents? If you get in our way, this is what could happen to you? 

    CLARE: No, but, I think the personal stories of both of those women are incredible. I should have brought a box of tissues to listen to Ali and tell the story of not just the accident that took her leg, but the tragedy that took her son. They are extraordinary women who make a very, very big contribution in this Parliament. I’m looking forward to working with them. 

    GLENDAY: Alright, let’s get to policy. I mean, they were very moving speeches. Anyone who hasn’t seen them is worth just reflecting on them. It looked as though during the election the Coalition was going to oppose your student debt reduction bill. Seems like they’ve had a change of heart. Have they pledged to wave that through? 

    CLARE: Well, not yet, but I hope they do. You know, this was one of the big promises that we made in the election campaign, that we would cut the student debt of 3 million Australians by 20 per cent. And this will take a weight off the shoulders of a lot of young people right across the country. In particular at elections, young people don’t often see themselves on the ballot paper, but they did at this election and they voted for it in their millions. For the average person with a student debt today, this will cut their debt by about five and a half grand. So, there’s a lot at stake here and I’m hoping that politicians right across the Parliament will vote for this legislation. 

    GLENDAY: Do you have a date? You hope it’s in place? Some of those young people have been getting in touch saying, hey, it’s gone up because of indexation and I haven’t seen this cut yet, but of course it’s not law yet. 

    CLARE: Yeah, really good question. Thanks for that, mate. So, when the legislation passes, the impact of it will be to backdate that cut to 1 June this year before indexation happened. That will make sure that people get the maximum benefit of the 20 per cent cut, so that the 20 per cent cut is made on what your debt was on the 1st of June before indexation happened. So, first we have to get the legislation through, then the tax office will have to go through the process of cutting the debt based on what your debt was back on the 1st of June. But you won’t have to do anything. This will all happen automatically at the Tax Office and you’ll get a text message when it happens to tell you that that debt’s been cut. 

    GLENDAY: There you go. So, sit tight. Though we do appreciate the emails we’ve been getting. A trickier issue for you is going to be child safety, in particular, child care, because you don’t control all the levers. You’ve got this Bill to terminate subsidies to child care operators doing the wrong thing. First of all, do you expect the Opposition is going to let that sail through as well? 

    CLARE: Well, we’ve been working really professionally and constructively with the Opposition and I do want to thank Sussan Ley, the Opposition Leader, and Jonno Duniam, the Shadow Minister, for the constructive way in which we’ve been working with them. We’ve also briefed the Greens. This is too important for politics. Parents across the country aren’t interested in us fighting about this. They’re not interested in excuses. They just want action. And this legislation is one part of it. I think all Australians have been sickened and appalled by the evidence coming out of Victoria. We need to do everything that we can to rebuild faith and trust in a system that parents need and rely upon. Right across the country, there’ll be parents packing bags and getting kids ready for early education and care right now. What this legislation will do is give us the power to cut funding to child care centres that aren’t up to scratch, that aren’t meeting the sort of minimum standards that parents expect and that our kids deserve. In a sense, it’s the biggest weapon that we’ve got to wield here because taxpayers provide about $16 billion to child care centres every year. That represents about 70 per cent of the funding to run a centre, you know, pays the rent, pays the bills, pays the salaries. So, they can’t operate without them. If centres are repeatedly not meeting that standard, I think most mums and dads watching will think it’s fair that we should have the power to cut that funding off to make sure that kids are safe. 

    GLENDAY: Sussan Ley will be along in a minute. We can ask her as well. I just wanted to know, have you worked out what the threshold for intervention is going to be? Is it going to be 1, 2, 3 strikes for a centre and then you strip the money? 

    CLARE: Well, it could be as simple as one. It’s important to make the point that regulators have the power to shut a centre right now if they think there’s a serious threat to children’s safety. But this will also give us the power to issue a show cause notice to a centre to say that we’ll shut it within 28 days unless they meet that minimum standard or to set conditions on them as well. And we’ll work closely with the state regulators who do the work in checking centres to identify the centres that should be the subject of this legislation first, the ones that are repeatedly failing to meet those minimum standards. And I’ve got to tell you, that work is happening right now with my department and state regulators across the country. 

    GLENDAY: Yeah. So, just before I let you go, next month, you can have a big meeting with states and territories. Advocates in this sector say a huge problem is that states and territories and the Commonwealth don’t talk to each other. Are we going to see concrete action on things like security cameras, better safety checks, maybe a national worker register for child care operators and workers? 

    CLARE: Yeah. This legislation is just one part of the things that we need to do. We’ll be talking at that meeting about a national educator register so we can track workers from centre to centre as well as from state to state. I think what’s happening in Victoria shows the weakness in that area, but also the role that CCTV can play in deterring bad people from doing bad things and help police with investigations and perhaps most important of all, mandatory child safety training. So, for the 99.9 per cent of workers in our centres who are good people, who care for our kids, you know, whose reputation has been tarnished by what’s happening at the moment, who are in the media for all the wrong reasons, to give them the skills that they need to identify people that might be up to no good, who might be trying to target our kids or to try and distract them from the work that they’re doing to keep our kids safe. 

    GLENDAY: Alright, Jason Clare the Education Minister, you’ve got a lot on your plate. We do appreciate you making time for us on News Breakfast this morning.  
     

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Second Reading Speech – Universities Accord (cutting student debt by 20%) Bill 2025

    Source: Murray Darling Basin Authority

    It is a privilege to introduce the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20%) Bill.

    As promised, this is the very first bill to be introduced to the Parliament after the election. 

    And as promised, it cuts the student debt of three million Australians by 20 percent. 

    Mr Speaker, on the 3rd of May Australians made their voices heard. 

    They voted for the tax cuts we are delivering.

    They voted for free TAFE that we are making permanent.

    They voted for us to build more homes.

    They voted for us to roll out more Medicare Urgent Care Clinics.

    They voted for cheaper medicine. 

    They voted for the biggest investment in Medicare ever, to make it easier to see a doctor for free than ever before. 

    And they voted for this. 

    Cutting the student debt of three million Australians by 20 percent. 

    Most of those are young Australians. 

    Just out of uni. Just out of TAFE. 

    Just out of home. Just getting started. 

    Trying to save to buy a home. 

    Thinking about starting a family. 

    Nurses. Teachers. Tradies. 

    Doctors and Paramedics.

    Engineers. Architects.

    IT workers. AI Experts.

    These are the Australians who will build Australia’s future. 

    Who are already building it. 

    And this will take a weight off their back. 

    The average HELP debt today is about $27,600.

    When this legislation passes it will cut that debt by about $5,520.

    If you have got a debt of $50,000 it will cut it by $10,000. 

    All up it will cut student debt by over $16 billion.

    When this legislation passes your debt will be cut by 20 per cent, based on what it was on 1 June this year, before this year’s indexation occurred.

    That will make sure you get the maximum benefit possible and that we honour our promise in full.

    And it will all happen automatically.

    The Australian Tax Office will process changes at their end. 

    You won’t have to do a thing.

    It will take a bit of time for the Tax Office to do this work. 

    But once this Bill is passed the cut is guaranteed. 

    Mr Speaker, this is a big deal for everyone with a student debt today.

    Three million Australians.

    But it’s not the only thing this Bill does.

    It also makes important structural changes to the way the repayment system works.

    To make it fairer.

    And to help with the cost of living.

    This Bill raises the minimum amount you have to earn before you have to start making repayments – from $54,435 in 2024-25 to $67,000 in 2025-26.

    And it reduces the minimum repayments you have to make.

    For someone earning $70,000 it will reduce the minimum repayments they have to make by $1,300 a year.

    That’s real cost of living help.

    More money in your pocket – not the government’s.

    When you really need it.

    This is an important structural reform.

    We are replacing the current repayment system with a new marginal repayment system.

    At the moment the amount that you pay off every year is based on your entire wage.

    That means once you earn above the current minimum repayment threshold of $54,435, you pay a percentage of your entire wage as a repayment.

    Under the changes in this Bill, you will only pay a percentage of your wage above the minimum repayment threshold.

    So, for example, if you earn $70,000 at the moment you currently have to repay $1,750 each year.

    Under these changes you will only have to repay about $450.

    In other words, if you earn $70,000 a year, you will have to repay $1,300 less a year than you currently have to.

    If you earn $80,000 a year, you will have to repay $850 less a year than you currently have to.

    And if you earn $110,000 a year, you will have to repay $700 less a year than you currently have to.

    You can still pay off more if you want to.

    But what this does is make the system fairer.

    It means you start paying off your uni degree when university starts to pay off for you.

    It’s a recommendation of the Universities Accord.

    And it’s a recommendation of the architect of HECS, Professor Bruce Chapman.

    When we announced this reform to create a marginal repayment system, Professor Chapman said this is:

    “…the most important thing that’s happened to the system in 35 years. It’s a marginal collection, it’s much gentler and much fairer than previously — we should have done it years ago.”

    Mr Speaker, these are important reforms, that will help millions of Australians, now and into the future. 

    It’s why it is the first Bill that we have introduced to this new Parliament.

    As the Prime Minister said when he announced in November last year that we would cut student debt by 20 per cent and make these structural changes:

    “It helps everyone repaying a student debt right now – and it delivers a better deal for every student in the years ahead.

    Permanent, structural reform to boost take home pay for young Australians.

    This is about putting money back into your pocket – and putting intergenerational equity back into the system.

    Good for cost of living.

    Good for this generation – and for generations to come.

    Good for building Australia’s future.”

    Mr Speaker, not surprisingly, the Coalition immediately said that they would oppose this Bill. 

    Like everything else, their immediate reaction was to attack this.

    I suspect they now rue that decision.

    They called it “terrible”. They called it “unfair”.

    In the electorates they represented, people saw something different.

    In electorates right across the country, where 1 in 4 voters have a student debt, they saw an opportunity to get a load off their back.

    To make their life a little bit easier.

    And they voted for it.

    As one anonymous National Party MP told the Daily Telegraph after the election:

    “My kids are paying off a university debt and I reckon they voted for Labor”.

    Mr Speaker, when even your own family won’t vote for you, you know you’ve got it wrong.

    Now the Opposition have a chance to get this right.

    Not just by voting for it.

    But by actually speaking in support of it.

    This is a chance for the opposition to admit they got it wrong.

    And that the Australian people got it right.

    Education is the most powerful cause for good.

    A good education changes lives.

    A good education system changes countries.

    It’s changed ours.

    We have got a good education system in Australia today.

    But the truth is it can be better and fairer.

    This Bill is part of that.

    So is Paid Prac that started this month for teaching and nursing students.

    For midwifery students and social work students.

    So are the University Study Hubs that will open up in our outer suburbs and regions over the next few months.

    And so is the new Needs-based Funding system for our universities that starts next year.

    It is also what the agreements we have signed with every State and Territory to fix the funding of our public schools are all about.

    And tying that funding to real reform to help kids who start behind or fall behind to catch up and keep up, and help more kids finish school and then go on to TAFE or University.

    It also means making our child care centres safer.

    And I will introduce legislation to help do that in a few moments time.

    Mr Speaker, once again, it’s my privilege to make good on a promise we made last year and that we repeated every single day of the election campaign. 

    In every seat across the country.

    To cut student debt by 20 per cent.

    To cut the debt of 3 million Australians.

    To take a weight off their back.

    To help with the cost of living.

    And to help build Australia’s future.

    I commend this Bill to the House.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Doorstop – Parliament House, Canberra

    Source: Murray Darling Basin Authority

    JASON CLARE, MINISTER FOR EDUCATION: Thanks very much for coming along. Today’s a big day. Today, I’ll introduce two pieces of legislation. The first, to cut student debt by 20 per cent; and the second, to cut funding to childcare centres that aren’t up to scratch, that aren’t meeting the sort of minimum standards that parents need and that our children deserve.

    The first piece of legislation to cut student debt by 20 per cent is something that we promised, I think, every day of the election campaign in every part of the country. It means cutting the debt of three million Australians. A lot of those are young Australians. Often young people don’t see themselves on the ballot paper when they go to vote, but a lot of young people did at this election, and they voted for it in their millions. The impact of this legislation is that for the average person with a student debt, they’ll see their debt cut by about $5,500. That’s a big deal. That’s a lot of weight off their back, and it will help a lot of young people that might be just out of uni, just out of home, just getting started.

    The second piece of legislation that I’ll introduce is about giving the Commonwealth the powers that we need to be able to cut access to the child care subsidy for centres that aren’t up to scratch. I think the whole country has been sickened and shocked by the revelations that have come out of Victoria in the last few weeks, and a lot of work is needed to rebuild trust in a system that parents rely upon every single day – more than a million parents across the country – and this legislation is part of that. The biggest weapon that the Commonwealth has to wield here is the funding that we provide that enables child care centres to operate. It’s something like $16 billion a year, and that covers about 70 per cent of the cost of running the average child care centre. Child care centres can’t operate without it, and I think it’s fair, I think most mums and dads will think it’s fair, that if centres are repeatedly not meeting the sort of standards that we set for them, that we should have the power to be able to cut that funding off. This is not about shutting centres down. It’s about lifting standards up and giving us the powers to make that happen.

    I might pass to Andrew to talk in a little bit of detail about the cut to student debt by 20 per cent, and then ask Jess to talk a little bit more about the legislation that we’ll introduce today to be able to cut funding to centres that aren’t up to scratch.

    ANDREW GILES, MINISTER FOR SKILLS AND TRAINING: Thanks very much, Jason. From our very first day in office, the Albanese Labor Government has been committed to breaking down all of those barriers that have held back too many Australians from accessing education and training. And today, we take another really big step forward in that regard. I’m going to talk really to make two points about this. The first one is to recognise the significance, as Jason just laid out, of this first piece of legislation – a piece of legislation that we talked about constantly through the campaign, and indeed since the commitment was made some months before that. A commitment that really resonated with so many Australians, three million of whom will benefit from this cut. Real cost of living relief. Money back in the pockets of Australians who can do with that help and that message of reassurance. I want to say this, though – not only have we been listening to students in Australia, we’ve been listening to all of the students in tertiary education and apprentices too, because this is not just relief from HECS debt. It’s relief that will also support nearly 300,000 students with various VET loans. They will also benefit.

    And that leads me to the second point I want to make here. There really is never a better time than now to think about pursuing a VET pathway. At the same time that we made this commitment that Jason will be introducing in the form of legislation today, we also made our commitment to make Free TAFE permanent. And that has been an extraordinary success in turning around the skills crisis and breaking down another barrier that’s held back too many Australians from accessing skills. As of today, more than 170,000 Free TAFE courses have been completed. More than 650,000 enrolments have taken place. This is making a huge difference alongside so many other incentives, like the one that’s just rolled out for 1 July encouraging more people to pick up the tools and become a housing tradie. There is more to be done of course, but all of these commitments demonstrate our determination to do everything possible to deliver cost of living relief today, and to create more pathways for more Australians to get the skills they want to do the jobs that we need. I’ll hand over Jess to talk about the second bill.

    JESS WALSH, MINISTER FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION: Thanks very much, Andrew. Thanks very much, Jason. Well, every child deserves to be safe in early childhood education and care, and every parent deserves to know that their children are safe too. But it has been a really distressing time for children and their families as we see these revelations unfold in Victoria. It’s been distressing for parents. It’s been distressing for the vast majority of early childhood educators as well, who are just going into work every day to take the best care that they can of our nation’s children. We want to rebuild the confidence that our early learning centres are safe and that they do provide quality early education. And of course, the vast majority of our early learning services do that every single day. But there are some repeat offenders who continue to put profit ahead of child safety, and that’s what the legislation that we’re introducing today is targeted to deal with. We have a strong message for those providers who do put profit ahead of child safety, and that is that we want you to lift your game or to leave the sector.

    Our focus is going to be on helping those providers to lift their game, and this legislation will give us the tools to do that. It will allow us to withdraw Commonwealth Child Care Subsidy from those providers who persistently and consistently let families down. It gives us a strong stick that we’re willing to use to drive standards in early childhood education to deliver the quality and the safety that parents deserve.

    JOURNALIST: Minister Clare, the Minister has just spoken about this legislation being a stick to encourage providers to do the right thing. Are there any, what else is in this bill to actually help some of the providers to do more? I mean, some of the big providers have talked about needing more funds or assistance for training, for instance; for CCTV cameras and so forth. What else is in this bill beyond stick?

    CLARE: Well, this legislation is about giving the Commonwealth the power to cut off funding, cut off the childcare subsidy funding to centres that aren’t meeting that minimum standard, that are repeatedly not meeting that minimum standard. Now these centres know the standard they have to set, now they know what the consequences will be if they don’t meet it. The legislation also gives more power to the authorised officers in our department to be able to do spot checks of centres, particularly in the area of fraud. This is another area that is very serious that we’ve been working on, that I’ve been working on now for three years. The Government’s provided about an extra $220 million for fraud investigation of early education and care. It’s helped to claw back more than $300 million for the Australian taxpayer. This gives more power to our officers to be able to do spot checks without a warrant or without the AFP on board, but they will also be able to, if they spot safety concerns, pass that on to state regulators as well.

    Now, Josh, you make the point that this isn’t the only thing we need to do, and that is absolutely right. When education ministers meet next month, we’ll be talking about some of the things you just mentioned. A national educator register so that we can track workers from centre to centre and from state to state. I think the revelations in Victoria over the course of the last few weeks tell us exactly why this is so important. CCTV and the role that it can potentially play in deterring a bad person from doing heinous things and also helping police with their investigations, but also the sort of training, mandatory child safety training, that already exists in the courses but doesn’t exist in the classroom, doesn’t exist in centres, that can play a crucial role in helping to make sure that the 99.9 per cent of people who are good and honest and hardworking and care for and love our kids and educate our kids every day, the people who are aghast at what they’re reading in the newspapers and are angry that their profession is in the media for the wrong reasons, have the skills they need to spot a bad person before they act. To have the skills that they need to spot somebody who might be looking to do something terrible to children or to distract them from stepping in and stopping it from happening. So whether it’s the register, whether it’s training, or whether it’s CCTV or a bunch of other things that will come out, I’m sure of the rapid review in Victoria and the work that’s being done in New South Wales, all of that is on the table when education ministers meet next month.

    The other thing I should mention here for the sake of completeness is the Attorney-General will also meet with AGs across the country next month to look at the reforms that are needed that are long overdue to working with children checks.

    JOURNALIST: How many breaches of the minimum standards would take you to strip the childcare centre of its funding? What’s the threshold in the legislation?

    CLARE: State regulators can shut a centre down right now if they think there’s a real and imminent threat to childcare safety. So they can do that today. What this legislation gives us the power to do is to shut a centre down if we think they’re below the minimum standard and they’re not likely to get there or they’re not intending to get there. So we can issue a show cause notice and say you’ve got 28 days, give us a good explanation about why you’re not there or we will cut your funding. Alternatively, we might set some conditions on the centre and say you’ve got a period of time to reach that standard, to meet the requirements that the state regulator has told you to reach, potentially to employ a child safety expert in the centre to help you reach them. And as I said, I want centres to get to those standards. We don’t want to have to shut centres down. But also we want to make sure that parents know that if a centre has a show cause notice given to it, or it’s got conditions that are imposed upon it, that mums and dads at that centre deserve to know that we’ve done that and to be able to make a decision about where they want to send their kids.

    JOURNALIST: You just said that state and territory governments already have the power to shut down centres. What difference is this going to make now that the Commonwealth has that power as well?

    CLARE: Well, they have that power and they use it. This is an additional power to make sure that the centres, and there are a number of them that are not at that minimum standard, take the action that they need to take to lift their standards to the sort of standards that we set as a nation, that parents expect and that our children deserve.

    JOURNALIST: So do you think that state and territory governments haven’t been doing enough of that kind of putting that pressure and threatening to shut places down, or shutting places down, if you feel like the Commonwealth needs to step into this?

    CLARE: Well, states do that work now. They tell centres about the standards they expect them to meet, and sometimes centres don’t meet them, and the problem remains unfixed. This gives us the power to step in there where centres are just either deliberately or for whatever reason not meeting those sorts of standards. The bottom line, though, is we all need to do more here. States need to do more. The Commonwealth needs to do more. Centres need to do more as well.

    JOURNALIST: Minister, just on HECS, obviously this is a one-off cut, but what about future students? Is it not unfair to only have this one line in the sand and cut it by 20 per cent? What about the students of the future?

    CLARE: Look, I think there’s a lot of work to do to make our education system better and fairer. And there’s a lot of work to do to make our higher education system better and fairer. The fact is today about 50 per cent of young people have a uni degree, but not everywhere. Not where I grew up, not in the outer suburbs of our big cities, not in regional Australia, not amongst kids from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds. And I want to fix that. That’s what the Universities Accord is all about, and we’ve already taken steps to implement some of that report –

    JOURNALIST: Does that –

    CLARE: Hang on a second. Part of that’s Paid Prac that rolls out this month – financial support for the first time for teaching students and nursing students and midwifery and social work students while they do the practical part of their university degree. Part of it is also uncapping funding for the fee-free university bridging courses that help make sure that people that have finished high school, or maybe they haven’t finished high school and aren’t ready for a uni degree, are ready for it. Part of it is also changing the way that we fund universities. Over the course of the last 12 months or so, I’ve struck agreements with every state and territory to fix the funding of public schools, what David Gonski called for more than a decade ago. Now, what we’ll do next year is change the funding of universities, so it’s needs-based as well, and the funding follows the student. And so more funding flows to students from disadvantaged backgrounds and students from regional Australia, because we know that there is not just fewer young people from disadvantaged backgrounds starting a degree but fewer finishing a degree.

    It also means, and I’m sorry for the long answer, but this is a comprehensive piece of work, building and operating more university Hubs in our outer suburbs, in our regions. When I was a kid growing up, there were a lot of Macca’s logos and a lot of Westfield logos in Western Sydney, not a lot of uni logos. Uni felt like it was someplace else for somewhere else. And a lot of my mates just either dropped out of school or finished school, never thought of uni because they thought it wasn’t for them. I want to change that too. And that’s what those Hubs are about. But this Accord is big. It’s the work of multiple governments and multiple ministers. That’s why we’ve set up the Australian Tertiary Education Commission to act as a steward to drive long-term reform here. And there is more work to do. This is just the start.

    JOURNALIST: If I can just follow up on that. Does that mean some of those changes involve potentially cutting student fees into the future?

    CLARE: Well, the ATEC’s job is to look at all of that. Not just that, but all of that.

    JOURNALIST: Can I go back to child care? I’m obviously very mindful you’re introducing this legislation today and the national database, it does require sort of corralling the states and territories. It’s a tricky job. Can you wait for this much longer, for this meeting to happen in the middle of August or later in August for a three-year period? And then can I ask as well, what’s the timeline for fresh year is setting up the database? This would take some time, would it not?

    CLARE: Josh, the truth is this should have happened yesterday. And this can’t happen fast enough. And states are already taking steps to expand their existing teacher registers. Victoria is a good example of that, and they’ll have that stood up by the end of August. So where states do that, that’s good, but we need to join it up, because to make the system work the way it needs to work, we need to be able to track people not just from centre to centre, but from state to state. And if you want evidence of why that’s important, have a look at the Ashley Griffith case in Queensland from a couple of years ago.

    JOURNALIST: If I may, this is on another issue –

    CLARE: Yep, and then we’ll bounce back.

    JOURNALIST: When are we looking to see the Government’s 2035 emissions target, and can we expect a more ambitious target?

    CLARE: Oh, look, I’ll ask you to talk to Chris Bowen about that. I’m pretty busy today on some pretty important things.

    JOURNALIST: Just back on the future student stuff, the cost of an arts or humanities degree has almost doubled under the last government. Is that something you’re looking to change this term?

    CLARE: Really, it’s the same answer that I gave just a moment ago about the role of the ATEC.

    JOURNALIST: Could I just follow you up on one of the questions you asked a minute ago? What’s the timeline for setting up a register like this with the national database for the childcare workers? I mean, and I believe there was a Child Safety Authority report in 2013 that said investigations into –

    CLARE: 2023, I think, Josh?

    JOURNALIST: Maybe 2023. The problem is investigations into sexual assaults that were unsubstantiated, whether they would be included in a data set?

    CLARE: Two separate questions. We want to stand this up as quickly as possible, and I mentioned in my previous answer the work that states are doing, but ACECQA, the National Independent Authority, is doing that work about what the elements of the register need to involve, and that will be presented to ministers when we meet in August. On that second question, that’s something that attorneys will be looking at as part of the working with children checks.

    JOURNALIST: Is it time for a national watchdog in this space?

    CLARE: Well, one of the things that the Productivity Commission recommended when they provided us with a blueprint for reform of early education and care, and I touched on the Accord, which is the equivalent for higher education, is a national early education and care commission. And I’ve got an open mind about that. I’ve said that in the media last week. What that report said is we’ve got to do a number of things to build a better, a fairer and a safer early education and care system. One of those, the first of those, is to pay workers more. When you pay people more, more people want to and we’re seeing the evidence of that this year. That 15 per cent pay rise has meant that we’re now seeing more people come back to the sector and building a permanent workforce. Our kids will be safer if the workers are permanent, that they’re not moving in and out of centres all the time. So that pay rise is already reaping dividends for parents and for our children. It also recommended that we remove the activity test so kids from disadvantaged backgrounds don’t miss out on the value of early education and care. And it’s recommended a commission like this. In its report, it didn’t say that this would have a role in safety, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t. And this is something that we will look at in the future.

    JOURNALIST: It was already hard to get child care workers in Australia. I know that there’s been a pay rise since then. Are you concerned that people aren’t going to be choosing child care careers following the really heinous allegations that have come out?

    CLARE: I might ask Jess to comment on this as well because I know how dear this is to your heart. We want people to do this job. There aren’t many jobs in this country more important. They’re vested with the trust of our most precious things, our children. The little ones that walk through the door or are carried through the door of centres every single day. And that pay rise is doing what we really wanted it to do last year. We’re seeing the number of people applying to be an early education and care worker jump by, what is it, Jess, more than 20 per cent. The number of vacancies drop by about the same amount as well. That tells us if you pay people more, people want to do the job. And I do worry that these people who do this incredibly important job, one of them is my cousin, she’s worked in this sector for 35 years. I remember when my little guy first went into care, I said, ‘how do I pick a good centre?’ And she said, ‘go to the place where the people have been working there forever, where they don’t want to leave.’ That’s a great centre, but it’s also a safe centre. And if we want that to be everywhere, you’ve got to pay people better. A lot of people have been leaving to go and work at Bunnings and Woolies just because you could earn more. And so that’s why that pay rise is important and that’s why rebuilding trust and faith in in this service, in this system, is so important.

    WALSH: Thanks, Jason. Well, I think when Jason’s answered a question, there’s not much left to say. But I’ve been going out to early childhood education centres for the past few weeks and talking to educators as they grapple with this. And they are absolutely devastated and distressed by these allegations. But it’s not making them want to leave the sector. It’s making them determined to stay. These are the people who want to provide quality early childhood education. That is what they are there for. That is what they are going into work to do every single day. We do want to see more dedicated, committed early childhood educators in the sector. And that is exactly what is happening with the pay rise, a historic pay rise of 15 per cent that educators themselves advocated for years and years. The previous government didn’t take action on that front. It meant that early childhood educators were undervalued. It meant that in our first term of office the workforce was really in crisis. People were leaving the jobs that they love because they weren’t earning enough and love just doesn’t pay the bills. So what we’re seeing with this pay rise is people coming back to the sector. We’re seeing people stay in the sector and we’re seeing them able to provide that really high quality care that children deserve and that they want to provide. And again, that continuity in an early learning centre with educators is the absolute key to quality and safety. When educators know each other, when they know the children, when they know the families, that’s when we get quality, safe, early childhood education. This historic 15 per cent pay rise has been a game changer for that.

    CLARE: Thanks very much everybody.
     

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Private groups: watch out for common CFC errors

    Source: New places to play in Gungahlin

    Compliance reviews have revealed a high error rate in privately owned and wealthy group CFC disclosures.

    Australian resident taxpayers (e.g. the head of a group of companies) must apply the CFC provisions if they have a controlling interest in a foreign company. If this applies to you, you need to disclose all CFCs, and their income, in tax returns and the international dealings schedule (IDS).

    We monitor private group compliance through a review program, where we’re regularly seeing incorrect disclosures that highlight knowledge gaps around the CFC provisions.

    Common errors

    Common errors we see are:

    • under-reporting of CFC attributable income in tax returns, often from errors in applying the active income test, or from failing to recognise tainted income
    • deemed dividends from unlisted country CFCs omitted from the taxpayer’s assessable income
    • incorrect IDS disclosures, including
      • completely overlooking CFCs including where there is associate-inclusive control
      • inaccurate reporting of CFC gross revenue and the number of CFCs acquired and disposed of.

    Private group compliance continues to be a key focus of our Tax Avoidance Taskforce. You need to lodge correct information, otherwise you’re risking lengthy review processes and costly amendments, so it’s important to check you’re complying.

    Get across your CFC obligations

    Follow these tips to make sure you’re getting it right:

    1. Review our Controlled foreign company page for the Private Wealth International Program. Knowing the CFC basics might help avoid mistakes.
    2. Discuss the CFC provisions with your adviser.
    3. Take care if your group is growing rapidly in size and complexity. This is when you’re most susceptible to mistakes.
    4. Keep your adviser across all business developments – seemingly small changes can have big tax implications.
    5. Amend any previously lodged tax returns if you discover an error. Waiting for us to notice may result in a tax bill including penalties and interest. 

    Keep up to date

    We have tailored communication channels for medium, large and multinational businesses, to keep you up to date with updates and changes you need to know.

    Read more articles in our online Business bulletins newsroom.

    Subscribe to our free:

    • fortnightly Business bulletins email newsletterExternal Link
    • email notifications about new and updated information on our website – you can choose to receive updates relevant to your situation. Choose the ‘Business and organisations’ category to ensure your subscription includes notifications for more Business bulletins newsroom articles like this one.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Young Japanese voters embrace right-wing populist parties, leaving the prime minister on the brink

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Lecturer, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University

    Japan’s ruling coalition suffered the widely expected loss of its majority in the July 20 election, as young voters shifted to the populist right. As a result, Shigeru Ishiba’s prime ministership now hangs in the balance.

    The election was for half of the 248 members of the House of Councillors, the upper house of the National Diet, Japan’s parliament. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) secured 39 seats, and its minor coalition partner, the Komeito Party, just eight. This left it three seats short of the 50 required to maintain its majority, as populist opposition parties made dramatic gains.

    The LDP is now confronted with minorities in both houses of the Diet for the first time in the party’s 70-year history. It is a huge decline from its postwar dominance of Japanese politics.

    In a press conference on Monday, Ishiba said he would not resign, as the LDP remained the largest party in the upper house. He also insisted he needed to stay in office to complete negotiations with the Trump administration, which had threatened to continue harsh trade tariffs after August 1.

    But Ishiba is facing calls from disgruntled LDP Diet members to step down. He had already led the LDP into minority government in last October’s election for the lower house of the Diet, the House of Representatives. He called the snap election in the wake of securing LDP leadership last September.




    Read more:
    Why did Japan’s new leader trigger snap elections only a week after taking office? And what happens next?


    However, the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP) was not responsible for this latest defeat – it managed only to retain its 22 seats. Instead, the LDP and Komeito instead lost out to the two rising populist parties: the centre-right Democratic Party for the People (DPFP), which went from four to 17 seats, and the far-right Sanseito party, which made the most dramatic gains, from one to 14 seats.

    Main opposition leader Yoshihiko Noda now needs to again consider whether to bring on a motion of no confidence in the Ishiba cabinet in the lower house. Last month, he backed away from doing so. Such a motion would likely succeed with the support of the other opposition parties, and immediately trigger a snap lower house election. But it would also be highly risky, as it could allow the two right-wing parties to again overshadow the main opposition.

    The young shift to the right

    Exit polls showed younger people voted in greater numbers for the two right-wing parties. Their dissatisfaction erupted against the political status quo that has long favoured older generations. Older Japanese remain the main supporters for the two major parties, as well as the smaller Komeito and the declining Japanese Communist Party.

    Many voters were angry about declining wages, persistent inflation, and a growing tax burden to fund the straining pension and welfare system that disproportionately benefits the elderly.

    The leaders of the two right-wing parties, 56-year-old Yuichiro Tamaki and 47-year-old Sohei Kamiya, more effectively used social media to exploit this electoral discontent and push their populist messages.

    Sanseito emerged at the start of the COVID pandemic in March 2020. It promoted anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and xenophobia through its campaign slogan of “Japanese First”.

    As more people have expressed frustration with Japan’s record tourist numbers, Sanseito and the smaller far-right Conservative Party of Japan sought to scapegoat the relatively small foreign resident population of waging a “silent invasion”.

    This includes spreading false stories about them causing local crime waves, depressing wages, hiking real estate prices, and abusing welfare.

    The number of foreign-born residents, mostly from other Asian countries, has steadily risen to 3.8 million to meet the demands of the shrinking labour force. However, it still only comprises about 3% of Japan’s (ageing and shrinking) population.

    Despite running and electing a majority of female candidates, Sanseito has also attracted criticism for wanting to end gender equality so as to raise the birth rate. It also wants to remove democratic protections from the postwar constitution and return to an imperial form of government.

    The success of the two right-wing parties, along with the nationalist neoliberal Japan Innovation Party, threatens to transform Japanese politics.

    However, it remains to be seen whether they will be able to cooperate effectively in the Diet with other parties to enact their policy agenda. This includes cutting the consumption tax rate while boosting subsidies to support families and farmers, and restricting immigration.

    Uncertainty reigns

    The increased political uncertainty will raise concerns about Japan’s ability to continue its strategic reorientation. It has pledged to increase its defence spending to 2% of gross domestic product (GDP). It also wants to increase security cooperation with Europe, India and Australia.

    The LDP’s Diet members will hold a full party meeting on July 31 to assess the election. If a majority of LDP members across both houses and representatives of the party’s prefectural chapters petition for a leadership ballot, they could mount a spill against Ishiba.

    Ishiba now needs to continue to negotiate with opposition parties to pass legislation in both houses of the Diet. US President Donald Trump’s sudden announcement that a “massive” deal has been struck with Japan for a reciprocal tariff rate of 15% may yet give him a temporary political reprieve.

    But as his post-election approval rating hits a record low 23%, his ailing premiership looks even more vulnerable.

    Craig Mark 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. Young Japanese voters embrace right-wing populist parties, leaving the prime minister on the brink – https://theconversation.com/young-japanese-voters-embrace-right-wing-populist-parties-leaving-the-prime-minister-on-the-brink-261673

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • Trump strikes trade deal with Japan to cut tariffs

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The United States and Japan struck a deal to lower the hefty tariffs President Donald Trump threatened to impose on goods from its Asian ally that included a pledge by Japan to invest $550 billion in the United States.

    The agreement – including a 15% tariff on all imported Japanese goods, down from a proposed 25% – is the most significant of the string of trade deals the White House has reached ahead of an approaching August 1 deadline for higher levies to kick in.

    “I just signed the largest TRADE DEAL in history with Japan,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform. “This is a very exciting time for the United States of America, and especially for the fact that we will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan.”

    Ishiba, who is facing political pressure after a bruising election defeat on Sunday, hailed the deal as “the lowest figure among countries that have a trade surplus with the U.S.”.

    The two sides also agreed to cut tariff 25% tariffs already imposed on Japanese autos to 15%, Ishiba said. Auto exports account for more than a quarter of Japan’s exports to the U.S.

    The announcement ignited a rally in Japanese stocks, with the benchmark Nikkei climbing 2.6% to its highest in a year. Shares of automakers surged in particular, with Toyota 7203.T up more than 11%, and Honda 7267.T and Nissan 7201.T both up more than 8%.

    The exuberance extended to shares of South Korean carmakers as well, as the Japan deal stoked optimism that South Korea could strike a comparable deal. The yen firmed slightly against the dollar, and U.S. equity index futures edged upward.

    But U.S. automakers signaled their unhappiness with the deal, raising concerns about a trade regime that could cut tariffs on auto imports from Japan to 15% while leaving tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico at 25%.

    Matt Blunt, who heads the American Automotive Policy Council which represents General Motors GM.N Ford F.N and Chrysler-parent Stellantis STLAM.MI, said “any deal that charges a lower tariff for Japanese imports with virtually no U.S. content than the tariff imposed on North American-built vehicles with high U.S. content is a bad deal for U.S. industry and U.S. auto workers.”

    ‘MISSION COMPLETE’

    Autos are a huge part of U.S.-Japan trade, but almost all of it is one way to the U.S. from Japan, a fact that has long irked Trump. In 2024, the U.S. imported more than $55 billion of vehicles and automotive parts while just over $2 billion were sold into the Japanese market from the U.S.

    Two-way trade between the two countries totaled nearly $230 billion in 2024, with Japan running a trade surplus of nearly $70 billion. Japan is the fifth-largest U.S. trading partner in goods, U.S. Census Bureau data show.

    Trump’s announcement followed a meeting with Japan’s top tariff negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, at the White House on Tuesday.

    “#Mission Complete,” Akazawa wrote on X.

    The deal was “a better outcome” for Japan than it potentially could have been, given Trump’s earlier unilateral tariff threats, said Kristina Clifton, a senior economist at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney.

    “Steel, aluminium, and also cars are important exports for Japan, so it’ll be interesting to see if there’s any specific carve-outs for those,” Clifton said.

    Kazutaka Maeda, an economist at Meiji Yasuda Research Institute, said that “with the 15% tariff rate, I expect the Japanese economy to avoid recession.”

    Japan is the largest investor in the United States. Together with pension giant GPIF and Japanese insurers, the country has about $2 trillion invested in U.S. markets.

    Besides that, Bank of Japan data shows direct Japanese investment in the United States was $1.2 trillion at the end of 2024, and Japanese direct investment flows amounted to $137 billion in North America last year.

    Speaking later at the White House, Trump also expressed fresh optimism that Japan would form a joint venture with Washington to support a gas pipeline in Alaska long sought by his administration.

    “We concluded the one deal … and now we’re going to conclude another one because they’re forming a joint venture with us at, in Alaska, as you know, for the LNG,” Trump told lawmakers at the White House. “They’re all set to make that deal now.”

    Trump aides are feverishly working to close trade deals ahead of an August 1 deadline that Trump has repeatedly pushed back under pressure from markets and intense lobbying by industry. By that date, countries are set to face steep new tariffs beyond those Trump has already imposed since taking office in January.

    Trump has announced framework agreements with Britain, Vietnam, Indonesia and paused a tit-for-tat tariff battle with China, though details are still to be worked out with all of those countries.

    At the White House, Trump said negotiators from the European Union would be in Washington on Wednesday.

    -Reuters

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Speech to the 2025 LGNZ Conference – Delivering for Ratepayers Together

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Introduction – Grounding in shared reality

    Thank you to LGNZ for the opportunity to speak today, and thank you to the mayors, chairs, and councillors in the room for putting your names forward to serve your communities.

    Right now, the cost of living is top of mind for every Kiwi: food, fuel, power, and, yes, rates. Households are stretched, and rate rises are a flashpoint for that understandable frustration.

    It is easy to point the finger in tense times, but I came here to point out a common cause. The Government and councils all want the same thing. Affordable, effective Local Government services for local communities.

    We recognise that depreciation has accumulated, and funding mechanisms are finite. Behind those rate rises are decades of pressure building: water systems that should have been renewed a generation ago, roads worn out faster than they’re maintained, and new housing demands without the means to service them.

    Central government blames councils. Councils blame government. The problem is blaming isn’t productive. New Zealanders don’t care whose fault it is – they want affordable and effective local government, too.

    The question is, how can we sharpen focus and raise productivity to do just that?

    Everyone’s under pressure, central government, local government and, most importantly, New Zealand taxpayers and ratepayers. The pressure households currently face mean that we cannot justify passing the bill to families who are already stretched. Inflation’s legacy is still biting. Families are tightening their belts. Government must do the same.

    From Wellington, we’ve worked hard to rein in spending, eliminating low-value activities. Households have done their part too, paying eye-watering mortgage rates and making sacrifices in their own budgets to make ends meet.

    These efforts have paid off. Households now see an overall consumer price inflation rate of 2.5%, down from a peak of 7.3% in 2022.

    We could be doing even better, but Stats NZ helpfully releases breakdowns of the drivers of inflation. And one figure practically screams out from the spreadsheet. Local authority rates and payments rose by 12.2% in the year to March. 12.2%, versus an overall rate of 2.5%.

    Clearly, local government is a key driver of cost pressure on households and, don’t forget, businesses that people rely on for goods, services, and jobs.

    In Wellington, we’re focusing on delivering services that only Government can deliver effectively and affordably. I believe local government should have the same focus, beginning with a clear conception of local government’s role.

    That is, what things must local government provide because private markets cannot? 

    To put it the way someone once said it to me: Roads, rats, rubbish and rates should be the focus. Horizontal infrastructure of new jobs and housing is a priority, too. Councils shouldn’t be pontificating on people’s four well beings. Your job is not to recreate Plato’s Republic here in the South Pacific. It’s to effectively provide a discrete bundle of goods at an affordable price.

    But we also recognise a hard truth: many of the costs facing councils aren’t of your own making.

    They’ve been baked into the system through decades of regulatory complexity. Layer upon layer of vague mandates, unclear responsibilities, and well-meaning rules that create more confusion than solutions.

    You’re stuck trying to deliver core services under rules that second-guess every decision and inflate every budget line.

    On overregulation: we hear you. We are pushing government back to basics but we’re also delivering a plan to make it easier for councils to reflect the needs of their communities.

    We’ve seen the so-called four well beings, introduced with good intentions, but resulted in asking councils to act as second-tier social ministries, expected to deliver on every issue, regardless of mandate, expertise, or funding.

    In 2017 I called the introduction of this legislation the Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream Bill. That’s because rather than requiring councils to deliver core services in a cost-effective way for households and businesses, the Government believed councils should be able to do whatever they felt like. That was always going to be a recipe for higher rates.

    And we’ve seen the proliferation of the RMA’s numerous processes and requirements turning councils into consultation machines.

    Add to that endless duplication across agencies, overlapping consents, decades of poor investment and management (and a Minister asking you to focus on attendance). We all need things to change.

    Councils are not only granters of resource consents, they are the biggest applicants, with much of council’s essential infrastructure hamstrung or cost inflated by the RMA.

    The Government’s resource management reforms tackle this head on. 

    Benchmarking will show ratepayers how the performance of their own council compares with others, in terms of rates, debt, and spending. Some healthy competition between councils is long overdue.

    We’re demanding discipline from councils, but we’re also committed to clearing away the red tape that constrains you. We’re scrapping the laws that confuse roles, inflate budgets, and justify the kind of spending Kiwis can’t afford.

    We’re rebuilding the system so councils can focus on the things only councils can do: represent their local communities, fix pipes, roads, rubbish, and infrastructure that unlocks growth and lowers costs.

    Back to basics isn’t a slogan. It’s a plan. And we’re going to deliver on it.

    A plan for councils and communities

    To cut costs, clear roadblocks, and put power back with communities there’s a clear blueprint:

    1. RMA reform – real change

    We are replacing the Resource Management Act aiming for a fundamental shift in how it works, because there’s no piece of legislation more detrimental to the cost of living than the RMA. 

    I’ve seen the details of resource consents for solar farms, which include requirements such as:

    • Inviting mana whenua to perform karakia before removing any native trees or plants from the site.
    • Providing written reports every six months until two years after construction is finished, outlining compliance with a 66-page Cultural Impact Assessment, with ongoing reporting beyond that.
    • Submitting a detailed landscaping plan specifying:
      • Every plant’s botanical and common name.
      • Exact location, spacing, and planter bag size.
      • Soil preparation methods and planting techniques.
      • The type and quality of materials like soil, mulch, stakes, and ties.
      • A requirement to replace any dead plant with the same or similar species at the same size.
      • Constructing a ‘public viewing area’ with off-street parking, and informational and educational signage. 

    This is what’s driving up power bills. You and your ratepayers want renewable energy but the consenting process demands ceremonial chanting and spreadsheet-level detail about every shrub on site. These two aims don’t compute.

    We see the same thing happening with supermarkets, IKEA, even hospitals. This madness raises prices at the checkout and on power bills.

    IKEA’s consent required inviting representatives of seven different mana whenua groups “to undertake cultural monitoring, karakia and other such cultural ceremonies on the site” at the pre-start meeting, commencement of earthworks and immediately prior to completion of bulk earthworks across the site, with ten days’ notice before each of those events. Ten working days, that can be two weeks of waiting for a construction site that wants to get cracking, more if you chuck a public holiday in the middle. IKEA must think us Kiwis really love affordable Swedish furniture for it to be worth their while. 

    That’s the problem though, for every IKEA there’ll be another organisation that just can’t get past the consenting, can’t hack the months of delays and paperwork. 

    Currently, and under the reforms of the last government, the RMA slows down housing, gums up roads and strangles infrastructure. It delays pipes. It creates years of delay for projects that ratepayers are already paying for.

    Under the new framework this government is working towards, councils will spend less time litigating, and more time building.

    National rules will be clear and local voice will be stronger, with less duplication and endless second-guessing.

    Infrastructure consents will be faster and more certain, especially for projects with regional importance.

    In short: fewer lawyers, more shovels.

    2. Regional Deals – Partnership, not payouts

    Second, we’re advancing a new model of Regional Deals. These are not handouts. They are contracts between central government and regions to deliver real outcomes in return for real reform.

    For years I championed the idea of genuine partnerships between central and local government to make sure important infrastructure actually gets built. The ACT/National Coalition Agreement committed to instituting long-term city and regional infrastructure deals, allowing PPPs, tolling and value capture rating to fund infrastructure.

    Deals will include:

    • New revenue tools for councils, but only where there’s discipline on costs and a plan to grow.
    • Dedicated infrastructure funding, where councils demonstrate delivery readiness, not just need.
    • Housing and economic growth acceleration, tied to streamlined consenting and local development strategies.

    And crucially, each deal must include measurable, transparent outcomes. Because Kiwis are done with blank cheques.

    It’s great to see negotiations underway on the first regional deals, and I hope to see the first deals announced by the end of the year.

    3. Encouraging investment so we can have nice things

    Many of you will be concerned about the cost of living for your ratepayers. I encourage you to save more, think about where you’re spending and prevent rates rises as much as possible. That’s what you can do. The Government is also looking to lower the cost of living by tackling one of the most stubborn costs out there. Groceries.

    Increased competition in the grocery sector is a win-win for councils. Ratepayers see cheaper prices at the checkout and regions see development that brings jobs and money to the area.

    Right now, outdated planning and consenting rules make it nearly impossible for new players to break into the market. I’ve suggested a possible way to fix that is through a fast-track grocery development process to clear the path for new entrants like Aldi, Walmart or local startups, to bring real competition to communities across New Zealand. 

    That means lower prices for ratepayers, but also new jobs, investment, and mixed-use developments that can revitalise town centres. It’s a win-win: Central Government gets out of the way, new businesses bring in the investment, and local councils and communities reap the rewards.

    Mindset shift – From finger pointing to problem solving

    None of this works if we go back to zero-sum thinking. That kind of mindset, the idea that central government only wins if local loses, or that councils are always to blame has failed New Zealand.

    It failed us with housing. It failed us with crime. It’s failing us with infrastructure.

    What works is recognising that our problems are shared and that the success of one level of government helps the other.

    When councils deliver better infrastructure, housing becomes more affordable.

    When central government cuts red tape, council costs come down.

    When both work together, communities thrive.

    This is the positive-sum mindset. And it’s what we need to get our country moving again.

    Conclusion – Delivering for New Zealanders, together

    So here’s the deal.

    We are repealing the four wellbeings and other vague mandates, not because they’re bad ideas, but because they’ve become an excuse to do everything and nothing.

    We are replacing them with a clear emphasis: focus on what only councils can do and do it brilliantly.

    We are reforming the RMA so you can build the pipes, roads, and housing New Zealand needs.

    We are putting Regional Deals on the table, tools that empower you, with accountability baked in.

    And we are asking every council to go line-by-line on spending, to say no to what’s nice-to-have, and deliver the basics at a price ratepayers can afford.

    That is how we rebuild trust.

    That is how we earn the right to ask Kiwis for more.

    And that is how, together, we can solve the problems of our communities, not by pointing fingers, but by rolling up our sleeves and getting to work.

    Thank you.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Albanese Government introduces legislation to strengthen safety in child care centres

    Source: Murray Darling Basin Authority

    Today the Albanese Government introduced legislation to Parliament to lift child safety in early education and care services.

    This legislation will give the Commonwealth Government power to cut off funding to child care centres that don’t meet the National Quality Standard when it comes to safety and quality, where there’s a breach of the law, or where centres are acting in a way that puts the safety of children at risk.

    The legislation will also allow Commonwealth officers to perform spot-checks without warning to detect fraud and non-compliance across the sector.

    Governments, State and Federal, need to do more to ensure the safety of children. These new powers are part of that.

    They will be used in close collaboration with states and territories regulating quality and safety under the National Quality Framework.

    This is just one of a number of steps the Albanese Government is taking with the states and territories to protect children in early education and care.

    Speeding up work on a nationwide register of early educators will be on the agenda at the Education Ministers’ Meeting in August, as well as the role of CCTV in centres and mandatory child safety training for educators.

    The Attorney-General has also put reform of Working with Children Checks as the first item on the agenda for the Standing Council of Attorneys-General meeting next month. 

    Today’s legislation builds on the work the Albanese Government and state and territory governments have already done implementing the recommendations of the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority’s Child Safety Review. These include mandatory 24 hour reporting of any allegations, complaints or incidents of physical or sexual abuse, and restricting the use of personal mobile phones in centres.

    The highest priority of the Albanese Government is strengthening safety in early education and care to make sure our kids are safe.

    Quotes attributable to Minister for Education Jason Clare:

    “This legislation is not about shutting centres down, it’s about raising standards up.

    “This is about making sure the safety and quality in child care centres is what parents expect and children deserve.

    “We are determined to do what needs to be done to rebuild confidence in a system that parents need to have confidence in.

    “It’s a system that more than a million mums and dads rely on to care for and educate the most important people in their world – their children.”

    Quotes attributable to Minister for Early Childhood Education Dr Jess Walsh:

    “Every child deserves to be safe in their early learning centre and this legislation requires providers to put safety first.

    “The Australian Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that children have a positive, rewarding and safe early education experience to get the best possible start in life.”
     

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for July 23, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on July 23, 2025.

    Hard labour conditions of online moderators directly affect how well the internet is policed – new study
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tania Chatterjee, Joint PhD Candidate at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, The University of Queensland Getty Images/GCShutter Big tech platforms often present content moderation as a seamless, tech‑driven system. But human labour, often outsourced to countries such as India and the Philippines, plays a pivotal role in

    Ghosted by a friend? 4 expert tips on how to handle the hurt
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Willis, Associate Professor, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University martin-dm/Getty When we talk about “ghosting”, we usually think it relates to dating. But what happens when you’ve been ghosted by someone you’ve known for years – your childhood best friend, a parent, a

    Labor’s new bill would cut HELP loans by 20%. But it also risks locking some graduates into a ‘debt treadmill’
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor of Higher Education Policy, Monash University The Albanese government’s 20% cut to student debt is the first bill introduced to the new federal parliament. It is clever politics. In the government’s first term, the 3 million Australians with a student debt turned high indexation

    ICJ climate crisis ruling: Will world’s top court back Pacific-led call to hold governments accountable?
    By Jamie Tahana in The Hague for RNZ Pacific In 2019, a group of law students at the University of the South Pacific, frustrated at the slow pace with which the world’s governments were moving to address the climate crisis, had an idea — they would take the world’s governments to court. They arranged a

    ‘Maybe this is the last minutes you are living’: how the war is impacting young Ukrainians
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ashley Humphrey, Lecturer in Social Sciences, Monash University Now into its fourth year, the war that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has taken a devastating toll. An estimated 60,000 to 100,0000 Ukrainian lives have been lost and more than 10 million citizens displaced, and entire cities have

    Auckland is NZ’s ‘primate city’ but its potential remains caged in by poor planning and vision
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Getty Images The recent report comparing Auckland to nine international peer cities delivered an uncomfortable truth: our largest city is falling behind, hampered by car dependency, low-density housing and “weak economic performance”. The Deloitte

    Climate disasters are pushing people into homelessness – but there’s a lot we can do about it
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Heffernan, Lecturer in Anthropology, Australian National University Almost half of all Australian properties are at risk of bushfire, while 17,500 face risk of coastal erosion. By 2030, more than 3 million will face riverine flood risk. Meanwhile, housing demand continues to outpace supply. With climate-related disasters

    UK bans Gaza protest group – could the same thing happen in Australia?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University More than 100 people were arrested in the United Kingdom on the weekend for supporting Palestine Action, a protest group that opposes Britain’s support of Israel. Palestine Action was recently proscribed as a terrorist organisation, placing it in the

    The incredible impact of Ozzy Osbourne, from Black Sabbath to Ozzfest to 30 years of retirement tours
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lachlan Goold, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary Music, University of the Sunshine Coast Ozzy Osbourne photographed in London in 1991. Martyn Goodacre/Getty Images Ozzy Osbourne, the “prince of darkness” and godfather of heavy metal, has died aged 76, just weeks after he reunited with Black Sabbath bandmates for

    Could the latest ‘interstellar comet’ be an alien probe? Why spotting cosmic visitors is harder than you think
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Webb, Lecturer, Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology Comet 3I/ATLAS International Gemini Observatory/NOIRLab/NSF/AURA/K. Meech/Jen Miller/Mahdi Zamani, CC BY On July 1, astronomers spotted an unusual high-speed object zooming towards the Sun. Dubbed 3I/ATLAS, the surprising space traveller had one very special quality: its

    Should Australia lower the voting age to 16 like the UK? We asked 5 experts
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pandanus Petter, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University The government in the UK is introducing legislation into parliament to lower the voting age to 16. If passed, the new age rules will be in place for the next general election, expected

    Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to object to medical care if it harms their patients
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Savulescu, Visiting Professor in Biomedical Ethics, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute; Distinguished Visiting Professor in Law, University of Melbourne; Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, The University of Melbourne HRAUN/Getty A young woman needs an abortion and the reasons, while urgent, are not medical. A United States Navy

    Ultra fast fashion could be taxed to oblivion in France. Could Australia follow suit?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rowena Maguire, Professor of Law and Director of the Centre of Justice, Queensland University of Technology Ryan McVay/Getty For centuries, clothes were hard to produce and expensive. People wore them as long as possible. But manufacturing advances have steadily driven down the cost of production. These days,

    Central bank independence and credibility matters. Here’s why
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Simon, Adjunct Fellow in Economics, Macquarie University Olga Kashubin/Shutterstock In the United States, President Donald Trump has been pressuring the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, to slash interest rates. This is partly to ease the interest payments on the ballooning US government debt.

    Kneecap’s stance on Gaza extends a long history of the Irish supporting other oppressed peoples
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ciara Smart, PhD Graduand in Australasian Irish History, University of Tasmania Love them or hate them, there’s no doubt Irish hip-hop trio Kneecap are having a moment. Their music – delivered in a powerful fusion of English and Irish – is known for its gritty lyrics about

    Do countries have a duty to prevent climate harm? The world’s highest court is about to answer this crucial question
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, University of Waikato Getty Images The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will issue a highly anticipated advisory opinion overnight to clarify state obligations related to climate change. It will answer two urgent questions: what are the obligations of states under international

    Gaza not a religious issue – it’s a massive violation of international law, say accord critics
    Asia Pacific Report Groups that have declined to join the government-sponsored “harmony accord” signed yesterday by some Muslim and Jewish groups, say that the proposed new council is “misaligned” with its aims. The signed accord was presented at Government House in Auckland. About 70 people attended, including representatives of the New Zealand Jewish Council, His

    Flying the flags for Palestine – NZ protesters take message to Devonport
    The Devonport Flagstaff About 200 people marched in Devonport last Saturday in support of Palestine. Pro-Palestine flags and placards were draped on the band rotunda at Windsor Reserve as speakers, including Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick and the people power manager of Amnesty International Aotearoa New Zealand Margaret Taylor, a Devonport local, encouraged the crowd

    View from The Hill: How much can Jim Chalmers get out of the economic reform roundtable?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra We’re now less than a month away from the start of the Albanese government’s “economic reform” (aka “productivity”) roundtable, but it has become quite hard to get a fix on exactly what this gathering will amount to. The guest list

    Israeli settlers beat to death 2 Palestinians in latest lynchings
    BEARING WITNESS: By Cole Martin in occupied West Bank Two young Palestinians were beaten to death on their land by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank on Friday. A funeral was held on Sunday for Sayfollah “Saif” Mussalet, 20, and Muhammad Shalabi, 23, who were brutally killed by a large group of settlers in

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Pacific – New world-class health services will transform Nauru – Govt of Nauru

    Source: Government of Nauru

     

    A month after the Government of Nauru announced a ground breaking strategic partnership with UAE company Global Mission Support Services (GMSS) to take over the management and delivery of the country’s health services, the results have already been transformational. 

     

    Minister for Public Health Maverick Eoe said while the first 30 days were earmarked for assessment and planning, the new medical team had already made major progress including reactivating the eye clinic and performing high-impact surgeries that previously could not be performed domestically.

     

    “The government decided that in order to make a real difference in the health care of all Nauruans we had to be innovative, and we are absolutely confident that this solution will dramatically improve, and restore trust in, our health system,” he said. 

     

    The health team has also responded to a dengue fever outbreak which is now under control following consultation with the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, while the company’s engineering team fixed the flooding at the hospital’s entrance which has been an issue for decades.  

     

    The partnership, at no extra cost to the Government, was announced in Parliament last month by President David Adeang, who said, “The government…. had concluded that engaging an experienced and capable private sector partner is a necessary step to ensure our people continue to receive quality and timely medical care, both locally and abroad.”

     

    He also said the new arrangement will reduce the financial burden on the OMR but assured the nation that “this arrangement will (still) ensure that our most vulnerable citizens—those who require overseas medical treatment—are cared for with dignity, efficiency, and compassion.”

     

    The GMSS medical team on Nauru are leading experts from across the world and include a US chief medical officer, a Ukrainian brigadier general who was a special forces physician, an Israeli ophthalmic surgeon, an Australian professor of public policy, a former British Royal Air Force doctor, and a US Navy admiral. 

     

    GMSS manager Roy Shaposhnik said, “Our mission has been receiving outstanding support and goodwill from government, the private sector, and most importantly, the people of Nauru.

     

    “Their support and cooperation remain our greatest motivators and enablers.”

     

    The initial team included civil engineers, logistics specialists, and operations personnel, followed by additional subject-matter experts who conducted in-depth assessments of the Nauru hospital and public health facilities.

     

    GMSS medical adviser Dr Dezheen Zebari said thinking of just how much change they can make in Nauru is “very exciting”.

     

    “This will be a transformative change and build a resilient health care system,” she said.

     

    Dr Zebari credited President Adeang along with ministers Eoe and Charmaine Scotty for “their vision.”

    MIL OSI – Submitted News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Labor’s new bill would cut HELP loans by 20%. But it also risks locking some graduates into a ‘debt treadmill’

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor of Higher Education Policy, Monash University

    The Albanese government’s 20% cut to student debt is the first bill introduced to the new federal parliament. It is clever politics.

    In the government’s first term, the 3 million Australians with a student debt turned high indexation of their loan balances into a major issue. The proposed 20% cut flipped a political negative into a positive ahead of the May 2025 federal election.

    The 20% cut legislation, introduced on Wednesday, will also change how student debt is repaid. All the 1.2 million people currently repaying student loans will pay less per year as a result.

    How does the cut work, and what does it mean in practice for current students and people with student debt?

    Beware the fine print

    These changes come with disadvantages. The 20% cut is not well targeted. It will deliver major benefits to recent graduates, but much less to current students or earlier graduates, and nothing to future students.

    While repaying less HELP debt per year sounds good, more graduates will be caught on a debt treadmill, repaying less than the annual indexation on their HELP balance. Both HELP changes will also be costly for government.

    Meanwhile, the government has not changed the cost of degrees. Arts, law and business students continue to accrue debts of about $17,000 per year of study.

    How does the cut work?

    The 20% cut applies to all student loan schemes, including the five HELPs now operating in higher education – HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP, OS-HELP, SA-HELP and START-UP HELP. These cover student fees as well as other programs to assist with overseas study or amenities fees.

    The loans to be cut by 20% will be based on amounts owed as at June 1 2025. As a guide to the amounts of money involved, the table below shows balances as at June 30 2024.

    Why the cut is not fair

    The benefits of the 20% cut will be distributed in a random and inequitable way, as a recent analysis from economic think tank the e61 Institute shows.

    The biggest beneficiaries will be people who recently completed their degrees: their borrowing has peaked but they have not made any significant repayments. Graduates who are partway through clearing their debt, and current students, will receive some benefit. People who recently completed their repayments, and future students, will receive no benefit at all.

    Other winners from the 20% cut will be current and former students of private higher education institutions, as they pay relatively high fees via the FEE-HELP scheme. So too do people who have borrowed to finance postgraduate degrees. Although most student debtors are women, men on average have higher debts, so they will benefit more from the 20% cut.

    A new repayment scheme

    The government is also changing how student debt is repaid.

    The income threshold at which repayments start will increase from A$56,156 to $67,000 a year for 2025–26. People with incomes between these levels who currently repay via employer salary deductions can stop after the legislation comes into force. Any unnecessary repayments will be refunded when 2025–26 tax returns are processed.

    Once the first income threshold is passed, the way repayments are calculated will also change. Under the current system, the repayment is a percentage of the person’s total income. At the $56,156 threshold the repayment rate is 1%, leading to a repayment of $561.56. These percentages increase incrementally up to 10% on incomes of $164,712 or more. The jagged repayment amounts in the chart below are the percentage of income rates changing 18 times on their way to 10%.

    The current repayment system was criticised as “unfair” by the Universities Accord final report in 2024, as an increase in income can result in lower take-home pay.

    Under the proposed system nobody will take home less money after a pay rise. Repayment will be based only on marginal income – the amount above the threshold. People with student debt will pay 15 cents in the dollar for all they earn between $67,000 and $124,999. From $125,000 the rate lifts to 17 cents in the dollar.

    The government has capped annual repayments at no more than 10% of the person’s total income. This ensures nobody pays more under the new repayment system.

    Slower repayments mean more debt in the end

    But there’s a catch.

    A Parliamentary Budget Office costing released in April 2025 estimates the effects of the new system on HELP repayment times. Obviously, if people repay less each year it will take them longer to clear their debt.

    For a HELP debtor consistently earning an average graduate income, the budget office estimates full repayment would take one more year, to 11 years in total. But for people starting their careers on lower incomes, below the $67,000 first threshold, repayment times could increase by much more, dragging out full repayment time from 32 to 40 years.

    What happens early in graduate careers is a major concern with the new system.

    Consider an arts graduate who finishes their degree with a HELP debt of $50,000. Indexation at the current inflation rate of 2.4% would be $1,200. Under the current repayment system, an arts graduate earning $65,000 would cover their indexation and reduce their debt by $100. Under the proposed system, arts graduates will see their debt increase through indexation unless they earn at least $75,000. For context, the median full-time salary for an arts graduate in 2023 was $69,400.

    The worry is many people will get stuck on a HELP debt treadmill, seeing their debt increase each year as they repay nothing or less than the indexation amount.

    The cost of these reforms

    In another report, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated the initial debt waiver will cost $9 billion, plus the loss of future indexation.

    But quantifying the total cost of these changes is not straightforward, as it involves estimating the future income and consequent HELP repayments of 3 million people.

    As most HELP debtors will repay less each year under the new system, for the government it means delayed repayments and higher bad debt. The budget office thinks in 2025–26, repayments of loan principal will decline by $820 million compared to the current system.

    What about the Job-ready Graduates scheme?

    This highlights the need for a more coherent funding approach, which integrates debts and repayments in ways that are fair to students while moderating the cost to government.

    The Universities Accord final report recommended student contributions should be realigned with graduate earnings.

    Ideally, graduates working full-time should complete repayments within similar ranges of years, regardless of which course they took. That is far from what happens under the current system – known as the Job-ready Graduates scheme – set up under the Morrison government. With the annual humanities student contribution for 2026 set at $17,399, many arts graduates will struggle to ever get their debt under control.

    The government has promised but postponed changes to student contribution levels. The new Australian Tertiary Education Commission will advise the government on this matter.

    But student contributions alone cannot fix the problem. The repayment system must also be realistic about what different types of debtors earn. Especially with student loans now also serving vocational education, the $67,000 first threshold risks creating a larger group of people with permanent student debt.

    Andrew Norton 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. Labor’s new bill would cut HELP loans by 20%. But it also risks locking some graduates into a ‘debt treadmill’ – https://theconversation.com/labors-new-bill-would-cut-help-loans-by-20-but-it-also-risks-locking-some-graduates-into-a-debt-treadmill-261472

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Ghosted by a friend? 4 expert tips on how to handle the hurt

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Willis, Associate Professor, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University

    martin-dm/Getty

    When we talk about “ghosting”, we usually think it relates to dating. But what happens when you’ve been ghosted by someone you’ve known for years – your childhood best friend, a parent, a child?

    These disappearances can be harder to explain, and even harder to heal from.

    It’s also surprisingly common. For instance, one study showed 38.6% of people have been ghosted by a friend.

    So why do people ghost those closest to them? What impact does it have on those left behind? How do you begin to move on?

    What is ghosting?

    Ghosting is when someone abruptly, or gradually, cuts off all communication without explanation. Whether it’s a friend, family member or love interest, the signs are much the same – messages left on read or calls ignored. Sometimes you’re blocked.

    Ghosting doesn’t just happen online. It can also play out in person, when someone deliberately ignores you – avoiding eye contact, refusing attempts to engage in conversation, pretending you’re not there.

    Unlike relationships that gradually wither over time, or end abruptly after an argument, ghosting is a one-sided withdrawal from a relationship that happens without closure.

    For the person left behind, it can feel like grief.

    Why do people ghost family and friends?

    People often ghost friends for the same reasons they ghost romantic partners.

    Ghosting is more common – and considered more acceptable – in brief or casual romantic relationships or friendships. That’s when people may ghost because they lose interest, wish to avoid confrontation, or find it easier than facing the discomfort of ending things directly.

    In longer-term relationships, ghosting may stem from incompatibility, be prompted by different priorities, physical distance, or growing apart over time.

    Major life transitions – such as becoming a parent, entering the workforce, moving, or going through a divorce – can often provide the catalyst for someone to shrink their social network.

    In some cases, ghosting is driven by self-preservation or concerns for personal safety, particularly when ghosting involves family members.

    People report ghosting in response to toxic, emotionally draining, or abusive relationships, often when previous attempts to resolve issues were met with abuse or aggression. In such instances, ghosting isn’t so much an avoidance strategy, but a last resort to preserve someone’s safety and psychological wellbeing.

    Ghosting has also been linked to certain personality traits. One study found people who reported ghosting others tended to score higher in narcissism (tend towards entitlement and lack of empathy) and borderline traits (so have trouble regulating emotions and are impulsive).

    Why does it hurt so much?

    People often ghost as they hope to spare the other person the pain of rejection. But that is rarely the case.

    Being ghosted by someone you’ve been close to for a long time is often associated with grief, much like the death of the loved one. After the initial shock, there is often anger and sadness.

    Ghosting also involves “ambiguous loss”. This ambiguity – the uncertainty and lack of closure – can almost freeze the grief process, making it particularly hard to move on.

    In addition to grief-like emotions, ghosting is also often associated with self-blame, rumination, feelings of worthlessness, and trust issues that can affect how someone relates to others in the future.

    How to cope if you’ve been ghosted

    There’s no easy fix and you can’t force someone to communicate with you if they don’t want to. But research points to some strategies that may help you move on and ease the pain:

    1. Acknowledge your feelings. Grief-like emotions are a normal reaction to being ghosted. Accept your emotions and express them in healthy ways. This is better than suppressing them, which is linked to depression, low self-esteem and reduced wellbeing.

    2. Seek social support. Social support is linked to a range of mental health benefits. Talk about your experience with friends, family or a mental health professional. This can help reduce feeling of isolation, and low self-worth. Greater social support is also associated with post-traumatic growth – positive psychological change that can emerge after a challenging life event.

    3. Choose self-compassion over rumination. It’s easy to get caught in the trap of replaying what happened and wondering what went wrong. But this can prolong distress and make it harder to move on. Instead treat yourself as you would a close friend – with kindness, compassion and care. Self-compassion has been linked to reduced rumination, anxiety and depression. Exercise, mindfulness and spending time in nature are examples of self-care with similar
      psychological benefits.

    4. Create your own closure. Being ghosted can often leave you stuck in a cycle of uncertainty and unanswered questions. You may never get an explanation and waiting for answers will only make it harder to move on. Writing a letter you don’t send can help create closure. This form of expressive writing can help you articulate your thoughts and emotions and make sense of your experience – and is linked to a range of psychological benefits.

    Megan Willis 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. Ghosted by a friend? 4 expert tips on how to handle the hurt – https://theconversation.com/ghosted-by-a-friend-4-expert-tips-on-how-to-handle-the-hurt-260300

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Hard labour conditions of online moderators directly affect how well the internet is policed – new study

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tania Chatterjee, Joint PhD Candidate at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, The University of Queensland

    Getty Images/GCShutter

    Big tech platforms often present content moderation as a seamless, tech‑driven system. But human labour, often outsourced to countries such as India and the Philippines, plays a pivotal role in making judgements that involve understanding context. Technology alone can’t do this.

    Behind closed doors, hidden human moderators are tasked with filtering some of the internet’s most harmful material. They often do so with minimal mental health support and under strict non-disclosure agreements.

    After receiving vague training, moderators are expected to make decisions within seconds, keeping in mind a platform’s constantly changing content policies and ensuring at least 95% accuracy.

    Do these working conditions affect moderating decisions? To date, we don’t have much data on this. In a new study published in New Media & Society, we examined the everyday decision-making process of commercial content moderators in India.

    Our results shed light on how the employment conditions of moderators do shape the outcomes of their work – and three key arguments that emerged from our interviews.

    Efficiency over appropriateness

    “Would never recommend de-ranking content as it would take time.”

    —A 28-year-old audio moderator working for an Indian social media platform

    As moderators work under high productivity targets, it compels them to prioritise content that can be handled quickly without drawing attention from supervisors.

    In the above excerpt, the moderator explained she avoided content and processes that required more time to maintain her pace. While observing her work over a screen-share session, we noticed that reducing the visibility of content (de-ranking) involved four steps. Meanwhile ending live streams or removing posts required only two steps.

    To save time, she skipped the content flagged to be de-ranked. As a result, content marked for reduced visibility, such as impersonations, often remained on the platform until another moderator intervened.

    This shows how productivity pressures in the moderation industry easily lead to problematic content staying online.

    Decontextualised decisions

    “Ensure that none of the highlighted yellow words remained on the profile”

    —Instructions received by a text/image moderator

    Moderation work often includes automation tools that can detect certain words in text, transcribe speech, or use image recognition to scan the contents of pictures.

    These tools are supposed to assist moderators by flagging potential violations for further judgement that takes context into account. For example, is the potentially offensive language simply a joke, or does it actually violate any policies?

    In practice we found that under tight timelines, moderators frequently follow the tools’ cues mechanically rather than exercising independent judgement.

    The quoted moderator above described instructions from her supervisor to simply remove text detected by the software. During a screen-share, we observed her removing flagged words without evaluating the context.

    Often the automation tools that queue content and organise it for human moderators will also detach it from the broader conversational context. This makes it even harder for the moderator to make a context-based judgement on content that gets flagged but was actually innocent – despite that judgement being one of the reasons human moderators are hired in the first place.

    Impossibility of thorough judgements

    “If you guys can’t do the work and complete the targets, you may leave”

    —Work group message of a freelance content moderator

    Precarious employment compels moderators to mould their decision‑making processes around job security.

    They are compelled to use strategies that allow them to decide quickly and appropriately. In turn, this influences their future decisions.

    For instance, we found that over time, moderators develop a list of “dos and don’ts”. They may dilute expansive moderation guidelines into an easily remembered list of ethically unambiguous violations which they can quickly follow.

    These strategies reveal how the very structure of the moderation industry impedes thoughtful decisions and makes thorough judgement impossible.

    What should we take away from this?

    Our findings show that moderation decisions aren’t just shaped by platform policies. The precarious working conditions of moderators play a crucial role in how content gets moderated.

    Online platforms can’t put into place consistent and thorough moderation policies if the moderation industry’s employment practices are not improved too. We argue that content moderation and its effectiveness are as much a labour issue as it is a policy challenge.

    For truly effective moderation, online platforms must address the economic pressures on moderators, such as strict performance targets and insecure employment.

    We need greater transparency around how much platforms spend on human labour in trust and safety, both in‑house and outsourced. Currently, it’s not clear whether their investment in human resources is truly proportionate to the volume of content flowing through their platforms.

    Beyond employment conditions, platforms should also redesign their moderation tools. For example, integrating quick‑access rulebooks, implementing violation‑specific content queues, and standardising the steps required for different enforcement actions would streamline decision-making, so that moderators don’t default to faster options just to save time.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Hard labour conditions of online moderators directly affect how well the internet is policed – new study – https://theconversation.com/hard-labour-conditions-of-online-moderators-directly-affect-how-well-the-internet-is-policed-new-study-261386

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schakowsky, Jayapal, Raskin, Senate Colleagues Fight for Children’s Fundamental Right to a Healthy, Livable Planet

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (9th District of Illinois)

    Full Text of Resolution (PDF)

    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Representatives Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), and Jamie Raskin (MD-08) led over 40 Representatives in the introduction of a new resolution to protect the fundamental rights of the nation’s children to a safe, habitable environment in the face of climate chaos’ increasingly destructive and deadly impacts.

    “There is no room for debate: climate change is real, and as this crisis grows, our kids are increasingly paying the price. The movement to protect our planet is more important than ever before because we have a president who continues to ignore the science and cozy up to the fossil fuel industry,” said Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. “I am introducing the Children’s Fundamental Rights to Life and a Stable Climate System Resolution to emphasize that we as leaders have a duty to ensure that all people, especially our young people, are protected from the existential threat of climate change. Our children and grandchildren should not be forced to suffer the consequences of our lack of action. Together we can save our planet.”

    “Every single one of us — no matter our age, our background, our race, our income — has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But those rights are in jeopardy, because the future of our planet is in jeopardy. I applaud the young people who are taking their futures into their own hands and standing up to the Trump administration’s efforts to sell out our clean air and water to the highest fossil fuel bidder. Inaction is not an option and we all must stand up for climate justice and a future where we can all thrive,” said Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal.

    “Children have a right to live and therefore a right to a livable planet,” said Congressman Jamie Raskin. “But the Trump Administration wants to carve out more giveaways to the Carbon Kings rather than protect the climate for children and future generations of Americans. Our Resolution with Representatives Jayapal and Schakowsky and Senator Merkley is about uplifting the voices of those who will be most affected by this climate irresponsibility and corruption—young people and children—and sounding the alarm on America’s accelerating climate disaster. The time to act for public accountability is right now. I salute everyone involved in this important campaign.”

    The resolution — led in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) — responds to the Trump Administration’s ‘Polluters over People’ agenda that has enriched Big Oil, fueled climate chaos, and increased energy costs for working families. The resolution calls for leadership to put the United States on a trajectory to avoid the worst impacts of climate chaos.   

    “Every child in America deserves a healthy and prosperous future, but the Trump Administration is selling out our health, safety, planet, and future to make billionaire corporate polluters even richer,” said Senator Jeff Merkley. “We stand with these courageous young activists in Oregon and across the country who are taking matters into their own hands with immediate and decisive steps to fight for themselves and future generations, address climate chaos, and tackle environmental injustice.”

    The resolution highlights the principles underpinning Lighthiser v. Trump, a youth-led lawsuit that was filed by 22 young plaintiffs from five states, challenging the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders that “unleash fossil fuels” and endanger the lives of children and future generations.

    In addition to Reps. Schakowsky, Jayapal, and Raskin, cosponsors of the resolution include Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Summer L. Lee, Shri Thanedar, Delia C. Ramirez, Yassamin Ansari, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Andre Carson, Nydia M. Velázquez, Nanette Barragán, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Dina Titus, Maxwell Frost, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Steve Cohen, Mary Gay Scanlon, Lateefah Simon, Jerrold Nadler, Kathy Castor, Kevin Mullin, Danny Davis, Julia Brownley, Dave Min, Sara Jacobs, Judy Chu, Maxine Dexter, David Scott, Mark Takano, Gabe Amo, Jared Huffman, Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Valerie Foushee, Becca Balint, Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr., Ro Khanna, Alma S. Adams, Ritchie Torres, James P. McGovern, Jill Tokuda, Darren Soto, Stephen F. Lynch, LaMonica McIver, Val Hoyle, and Jahana Hayes.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Call for information – Aggravated robberies – Katherine

    Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

    NT Police are calling for information following two separate aggravated robberies that occurred in Katherine on Monday evening.

    Around 9:40pm, the Joint Emergency Services Communication Centre (JESCC) received reports of a stolen motor vehicle from a facility on Riverbank Drive.

    It is alleged that three male youths approached an employee at the facility and threatened him with a knife. They demanded their keys and subsequently stole the victim’s vehicle.  While attempting to exit the location, the offenders crashed into a fence, causing them to abandon the vehicle and flee the scene on foot.

    Police attended, and a crime scene was established. The alleged offenders remain outstanding, and investigations are ongoing.

    Later, in a separate incident, around 11:05pm, the JESCC received a report that a group of youths had entered another business premises in Katherine South.

    An employee working at the location was threatened with a knife for their vehicle keys. The employee was able to secure themselves in the staff room with the offenders banging on the door until they heard the victim called police.

    Before fleeing the scene, the group allegedly attempted to steal a vehicle that was parked outside but were unsuccessful.

    Police attended and a crime scene was established. The group remain outstanding, and investigations are ongoing.

    It is not known at this stage if the two incidents are linked.

    Police urge anyone with information pertaining to either incident to make contact on 131 444. Please quote reference number P25195157. Anonymous reports can be made through Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or via https://crimestoppersnt.com.au/.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Albanese Government introduces legislation to cut every student debt by 20 per cent

    Source: Murray Darling Basin Authority

    The Albanese Labor Government is today introducing legislation to cut 20 per cent off all student debts. 

    This will wipe more than $16 billion in debt for more than three million Australians. 

    Our number one focus is continuing to deliver cost of living relief for the Australian people. 

    Cutting student debt by 20 per cent will ease pressure on workers and students across the country. 

    For someone with the average debt of $27,600 this will see around $5,520 wiped from their outstanding Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) loans. 

    Backdated to 1 June, it will reduce the burden for Australians with a student debt – including all HELP, Vocational Education and Training (VET) Student Loans, Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans, Student Startup Loans, and other student loans. 

    In addition to cutting student debt by 20 per cent, the legislation raises the minimum amount before people have to start making repayments from $54,435 to $67,000 and reduces minimum repayments. 

    For someone earning $70,000 it will reduce the minimum repayments they have to make by $1,300 a year. 

    This builds on our reforms to fix the indexation formula, which has already cut more than $3 billion in student debt. 

    This means, all up, the Albanese Labor Government will cut close to $20 billion in student debt for more than three million Australians. 

    Quotes attributable to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese: 

    “This is another way my Government is continuing to deliver cost of living relief to Australians. 

    “We promised cutting student debt would be the first thing we did back in Parliament – and that’s exactly what we’re doing. 

    “Getting an education shouldn’t mean a lifetime of debt. 

    “No matter where you live or how much your parents earn, my Government will work to ensure the doors of opportunity are open for you.” 

    Quotes attributable to Minister for Education Jason Clare: 

    “We promised we would cut your student debt by 20 per cent and we are delivering. 

    “This is a big deal for 3 million Australians, in particular, a lot of young Australians. 

    “Just out of uni, just getting started, this will take a weight off their back. 

    “It will also cut their annual repayments. For someone earning $70,000 a year, it will cut the amount they have to repay every year by $1,300.” 

    “That’s real help with the cost of living. It means more money in your pocket, not the government’s.” 

    Quotes attributable to Minister for Skills and Training Andrew Giles: 

    “From speaking with students at TAFEs across the country, I know that cost can often be a barrier to Australians pursuing an apprenticeship or qualification. 

    “This bill will deliver cost of living relief to almost 280,000 students in the VET sector – cutting half a billion dollars of student debt from this group alone. 

    “Our Government is focused on reducing the barriers to further study and training, so that every Australian can get the skills they need for secure, well-paid jobs.”

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to object to medical care if it harms their patients

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Julian Savulescu, Visiting Professor in Biomedical Ethics, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute; Distinguished Visiting Professor in Law, University of Melbourne; Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, The University of Melbourne

    HRAUN/Getty

    A young woman needs an abortion and the reasons, while urgent, are not medical. A United States Navy nurse at Guantánamo Bay is ordered to force-feed a defiant detainee on hunger strike.

    These very different real-life cases have one connecting thread: the question of whether a health professional can conscientiously object to carrying out a patient’s request.

    Freedom of conscience is often held up as a purely noble principle. But when it’s used to deny health care, it means a single person’s beliefs are dictating what is best for another person’s physical and mental health – which can have devastating, even fatal, results.

    In our recent book, Rethinking Conscientious Objection in Healthcare, colleagues and I conclude doctors should not be free to make medical decisions based on their personal beliefs.

    It’s not noble to refuse care

    Freedom of conscience is strongly – but not absolutely – protected under international human rights law. It is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    This principle has often been used for moral purposes: for example, to resist orders to torture or kill.

    But after researching use of conscientious objection by health professionals, I have concluded it is seriously flawed when used to deny patients health services. This is especially so when particular doctors have a monopoly on service provision, as is the case with abortion and assisted dying in many rural and regional areas of Australia.

    In Australia, doctors are allowed to conscientiously object to abortion, although nearly all states require referral to other service providers or information about how to access the relevant service.

    In practice, these laws are not enforced and sometimes disregarded.

    A doctor’s refusal can mean patients can be denied the standard of care they need, or indeed, any care at all.

    Health-care professionals are not like pacifists refusing conscription into the military, opposing something forced upon them. They freely choose health-care careers that come with obligations and with ethical stances already established by professional codes of conduct.

    People are free to hold whatever beliefs they choose, but those beliefs will inevitably close off some options for them. For example, a vegetarian will not be able to work in an abattoir. That is true for every one of us. But what shouldn’t happen is a doctor’s personal beliefs closing off legitimate options for their patient.

    4 guiding questions

    Instead of personal values, there are four key secular principles we propose that doctors should rely on when deciding how to advise patients about sensitive procedures:

    • is it legal?

    • is it a just and fair use of any resources that might be limited?

    • is it in the interests of the patient’s wellbeing?

    • is it what the patient has themselves decided they want?

    Of course, there will be times when some of these principles are in conflict – that is when it is important to apply the most crucial ones, the wellbeing of the patient and the patient’s own wishes.

    In Ireland in 2012, a young woman named Savita Halappanavar went to an Irish hospital for treatment for her miscarriage. Doctors knew there was no hope of the pregnancy surviving but refused to evacuate her uterus while there was still a fetal heartbeat, for fear of breaching Ireland’s anti-abortion laws. The result: Savita died of septicaemia at 31.

    If doctors had put the patient’s wellbeing first, they would have given her that termination, despite the law, and it would have saved her life.

    These are the principles that should have been applied to the examples above: the woman seeking an abortion for career reasons or the nurse refusing to force-feed prisoners.

    The doctor (or nurse) should ask: Is it what the patient has autonomously decided they want? Will it lead to the best outcome for both their physical and their mental health?

    If abortion will promote a woman’s wellbeing, it is in her interests. Hunger strikers should not be force-fed because it violates their autonomy.

    An unfair burden

    While doctors’ personal values are important, they should not dictate care at the bedside. Not only can this disadvantage the patient, but it places an unfair burden on colleagues who do accept such work, and must carry a disproportionate load of procedures they might find unpleasant and financially unrewarding.

    It also creates injustice. Patients who are educated, wealthy and well-connected already find it easier to access health care. Conscientious objection intensifies that unfairness in large swathes of the country because it further limits options.

    Two countries with excellent health-care systems, Sweden and Finland, do not permit conscientious objection by medical professionals.

    In Australia, it is time we do the same and strongly limit conscientious objection as a legal right for health professionals. We should also ensure those entering the discipline are prepared to take on all procedures relevant to their specialty.

    And lastly, but most importantly, we should educate them that the patient’s interests and values must always come first. An individual doctor’s sense of moral authority should not be permitted to morph into medical and moral authoritarianism.

    Julian Savulescu 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. Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to object to medical care if it harms their patients – https://theconversation.com/doctors-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-object-to-medical-care-if-it-harms-their-patients-260003

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to object to medical care if it harms their patients

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Julian Savulescu, Visiting Professor in Biomedical Ethics, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute; Distinguished Visiting Professor in Law, University of Melbourne; Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, The University of Melbourne

    HRAUN/Getty

    A young woman needs an abortion and the reasons, while urgent, are not medical. A United States Navy nurse at Guantánamo Bay is ordered to force-feed a defiant detainee on hunger strike.

    These very different real-life cases have one connecting thread: the question of whether a health professional can conscientiously object to carrying out a patient’s request.

    Freedom of conscience is often held up as a purely noble principle. But when it’s used to deny health care, it means a single person’s beliefs are dictating what is best for another person’s physical and mental health – which can have devastating, even fatal, results.

    In our recent book, Rethinking Conscientious Objection in Healthcare, colleagues and I conclude doctors should not be free to make medical decisions based on their personal beliefs.

    It’s not noble to refuse care

    Freedom of conscience is strongly – but not absolutely – protected under international human rights law. It is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    This principle has often been used for moral purposes: for example, to resist orders to torture or kill.

    But after researching use of conscientious objection by health professionals, I have concluded it is seriously flawed when used to deny patients health services. This is especially so when particular doctors have a monopoly on service provision, as is the case with abortion and assisted dying in many rural and regional areas of Australia.

    In Australia, doctors are allowed to conscientiously object to abortion, although nearly all states require referral to other service providers or information about how to access the relevant service.

    In practice, these laws are not enforced and sometimes disregarded.

    A doctor’s refusal can mean patients can be denied the standard of care they need, or indeed, any care at all.

    Health-care professionals are not like pacifists refusing conscription into the military, opposing something forced upon them. They freely choose health-care careers that come with obligations and with ethical stances already established by professional codes of conduct.

    People are free to hold whatever beliefs they choose, but those beliefs will inevitably close off some options for them. For example, a vegetarian will not be able to work in an abattoir. That is true for every one of us. But what shouldn’t happen is a doctor’s personal beliefs closing off legitimate options for their patient.

    4 guiding questions

    Instead of personal values, there are four key secular principles we propose that doctors should rely on when deciding how to advise patients about sensitive procedures:

    • is it legal?

    • is it a just and fair use of any resources that might be limited?

    • is it in the interests of the patient’s wellbeing?

    • is it what the patient has themselves decided they want?

    Of course, there will be times when some of these principles are in conflict – that is when it is important to apply the most crucial ones, the wellbeing of the patient and the patient’s own wishes.

    In Ireland in 2012, a young woman named Savita Halappanavar went to an Irish hospital for treatment for her miscarriage. Doctors knew there was no hope of the pregnancy surviving but refused to evacuate her uterus while there was still a fetal heartbeat, for fear of breaching Ireland’s anti-abortion laws. The result: Savita died of septicaemia at 31.

    If doctors had put the patient’s wellbeing first, they would have given her that termination, despite the law, and it would have saved her life.

    These are the principles that should have been applied to the examples above: the woman seeking an abortion for career reasons or the nurse refusing to force-feed prisoners.

    The doctor (or nurse) should ask: Is it what the patient has autonomously decided they want? Will it lead to the best outcome for both their physical and their mental health?

    If abortion will promote a woman’s wellbeing, it is in her interests. Hunger strikers should not be force-fed because it violates their autonomy.

    An unfair burden

    While doctors’ personal values are important, they should not dictate care at the bedside. Not only can this disadvantage the patient, but it places an unfair burden on colleagues who do accept such work, and must carry a disproportionate load of procedures they might find unpleasant and financially unrewarding.

    It also creates injustice. Patients who are educated, wealthy and well-connected already find it easier to access health care. Conscientious objection intensifies that unfairness in large swathes of the country because it further limits options.

    Two countries with excellent health-care systems, Sweden and Finland, do not permit conscientious objection by medical professionals.

    In Australia, it is time we do the same and strongly limit conscientious objection as a legal right for health professionals. We should also ensure those entering the discipline are prepared to take on all procedures relevant to their specialty.

    And lastly, but most importantly, we should educate them that the patient’s interests and values must always come first. An individual doctor’s sense of moral authority should not be permitted to morph into medical and moral authoritarianism.

    Julian Savulescu 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. Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to object to medical care if it harms their patients – https://theconversation.com/doctors-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-object-to-medical-care-if-it-harms-their-patients-260003

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Do countries have a duty to prevent climate harm? The world’s highest court is about to answer this crucial question

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nathan Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, University of Waikato

    Getty Images

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will issue a highly anticipated advisory opinion overnight to clarify state obligations related to climate change.

    It will answer two urgent questions: what are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment from greenhouse gas emissions, and what are the legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to Earth’s atmosphere and environment?

    ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding. But coming from the world’s highest court, they provide an authoritative opinion on serious issues that can be highly persuasive.

    This advisory opinion marks the culmination of a campaign that began in 2019 when students and youth organisations in Vanuatu – one of the most vulnerable nations to climate-related impacts – persuaded their government to seek clarification on what states should be doing to protect them.

    Led by Vanuatu and co-sponsored by 132 member states, including New Zealand and Australia, the United Nations General Assembly formally requested the advisory opinion in March 2023.

    More than two years of public consultation and deliberation ensued, leading to this week’s announcement.

    What to expect

    Looking at the specific questions to be addressed, at least three aspects stand out.

    First, the sources and areas of international law under scrutiny are not confined to the UN’s climate change framework. This invites the ICJ to consider a broad range of law – including trans-boundary environmental law, human rights law, international investment law, humanitarian law, trade law and beyond – and to draw on both treaty-related obligations and customary international law.

    Such an encyclopaedic examination could produce a complex and integrated opinion on states’ obligations to protect the environment and climate system.

    Second, the opinion will address what obligations exist, not just to those present today, but to future generations. This follows acknowledgement of the so-called “intertemporal characteristics” of climate change in recent climate-related court decisions and the need to respond effectively to both the current climate crisis and its likely ongoing consequences.

    Third, the opinion won’t just address what obligations states have, but also what the consequences should be for nations:

    where they, by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment.

    Addressing consequences as well as obligations should cause states to pay closer attention and make the ICJ’s advisory more relevant to domestic climate litigation and policy discussions.

    Representatives from Pacific island nations gathered outside the International Court of Justice during the hearings.
    Michel Porro/Getty Images

    Global judicial direction

    Two recent court findings may offer clues as to the potential scope of the ICJ’s findings.

    Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights published its own advisory opinion on state obligations in response to climate change.

    Explicitly connecting fundamental human rights with a healthy ecosystem, this opinion affirmed states have an imperative duty to prevent irreversible harm to the climate system. Moreover, the duty to safeguard the common ecosystem must be understood as a fundamental principle of international law to which states must adhere.

    Meanwhile last week, an Australian federal court dismissed a landmark climate case, determining that the Australian government does not owe a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to protect them from the consequences of climate change.

    The court accepted the claimants face significant loss and damage from climate impacts and that previous Australian government policies on greenhouse gas emissions were not aligned with the best science to limit climate change. But it nevertheless determined that “matters of high or core government policy” are not subject to common law duties of care.

    Whether the ICJ will complement the Inter-American court’s bold approach or opt for a more constrained and conservative response is not certain. But now is the time for clear and ambitious judicial direction with global scope.

    Implications for New Zealand

    Aotearoa New Zealand aspires to climate leadership through its Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019. This set 2050 targets of reducing emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) to net zero, and biogenic methane by 25-47%.

    However, actions to date are likely insufficient to meet this target. Transport emissions continue to rise and agriculture – responsible for nearly half of the country’s emissions – is lightly regulated.

    Although the government plans to double renewable energy by 2050, it is also in the process of lifting a 2018 ban on offshore gas exploration and has pledged $200 million to co-invest in the development of new fields.

    Critics also point out the government has made little progress towards its promise to install 10,000 EV charging stations by 2030 while axing a clean-investment fund.

    Although a final decision is yet to be made, the government is also considering to lower the target for cuts to methane emissions from livestock, against advice from the Climate Change Commission.

    With the next global climate summit coming up in November, the ICJ opinion may offer timely encouragement for states to reconsider their emissions targets and the ambition of climate policies.

    Most countries have yet to submit their latest emissions reduction pledges (known as nationally determined contributions) under the Paris Agreement. New Zealand has made its pledge, but it has been described as “underwhelming”. This may present a chance to adjust ambition upwards.

    If the ICJ affirms that states have binding obligations to prevent climate harm, including trans-boundary impacts, New Zealand’s climate change policies and progress to date could face increased legal scrutiny.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Do countries have a duty to prevent climate harm? The world’s highest court is about to answer this crucial question – https://theconversation.com/do-countries-have-a-duty-to-prevent-climate-harm-the-worlds-highest-court-is-about-to-answer-this-crucial-question-261396

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Here’s why 3-person embryos are a breakthrough for science – but not LGBTQ+ families

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jennifer Power, Principal Research Fellow, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University

    Last week, scientists announced the birth of eight healthy babies in the United Kingdom conceived with DNA from three people. Some headlines have called it “three-person IVF”.

    The embryo uses the DNA from the egg and sperm of the intended father and mother, as well as cells from the egg of a second woman (the donor).

    This process – known as mitochondrial replacement therapy – allows women with certain genetic disorders to conceive a child without passing on their condition.

    While it’s raised broader questions about “three-parent” babies, it’s not so simple. Here’s why it’s unlikely this development will transform the diverse ways LGBTQ+ people are already making families.

    What this technology is – and isn’t

    The UK became the first country in the world to allow mitochondrial donation for three-person embryos ten years ago, in 2015.

    In other countries, such donations are banned or strictly controlled. In Australia, a staged approach to allow mitochondrial donation was introduced in 2022. Stage one will involve clinical trials to determine safety and effectiveness, and establish clear ethical guidelines for donations.

    These restrictions are based on political and ethical concerns about the use of human embryos for research, the unknown health impact on children, and the broader implications of allowing genetic modification of human embryos.

    There are also concerns about the ethical or legal implications of creating babies with “three parents”.

    Carefully and slowly considering these ethical issues is clearly important. But it’s inaccurate to suggest this process creates three parents.

    First, the amount of DNA the donor provides is tiny, only 0.1% of the baby’s DNA. The baby will not share any physical characteristics with the donor.

    While it is significant that two women’s DNA has been used in creating an embryo, it doesn’t mean lesbian couples will be rushing to access this particular in vitro fertilisation (IVF) technology.

    This technique is only used for people affected by mitochondrial disease and is closely regulated. It is not available more widely and in Australia, is not yet available even for this use.

    Second, while biological lineage is an important part of many people’s identity and sense of self, DNA alone does not make a parent.

    As many adoptive, foster and LGBTQ+ parents will attest, parenting is about love, connection and everyday acts of care for a child.

    How do rainbow families use IVF?

    Existing IVF is already expensive and medically invasive. Many fertility services offer a range of additional treatments purported to aid fertility, but extra interventions add more costs and are not universally recommended by doctors.

    While many lesbian couples and single women use fertility services to access donor sperm, not everyone will need to use IVF.

    Less invasive fertilisation techniques, such as intrauterine insemination, may be available for women without fertility problems. This means inserting sperm directly into the uterus, rather than fertilising an egg in a clinic and then implanting that embryo.

    Same-sex couples who have the option to create a baby with a sperm donor they know – rather than from a register – may also choose home-based insemination, the proverbial turkey baster. This is a cheaper and more intimate way to conceive and many women prefer a donor who will have some involvement in their child’s life.

    In recent years, “reciprocal” IVF has also grown in popularity among lesbian couples. This means an embryo is created using one partner’s egg, and the other partner carries it.

    Reciprocal IVF’s popularity suggests biology does play a role for LGBTQ+ women in conceiving a baby. When both mothers share a biological connection to the child, it may help overcome stigmatisation of “non-birth” mothers as less legitimate.

    But biology is by no means the defining feature of rainbow families.

    LGBTQ+ people are already parents

    The 2021 census showed 17% of same-sex couples had children living with them; among female same-sex couples it was 28%. This is likely an underestimate, as the census only collects data on couples that live together.

    Same-sex couples often conceive children using donor sperm or eggs, and this may involve surrogacy. But across the LGBTQ+ community, there are diverse ways people become parents.

    Same-sex couples are one part of the LGBTQ+ community. Growing numbers of trans and non-binary people are choosing to carry a baby (as gestational parents), as well as single parents who use donors or fertility services. Many others conceive children through sex, including bi+ people or others who conceive within a relationship.

    While LGBTQ+ people can legally adopt children in Australia, adoption is not common. However, many foster parents are LGBTQ+.

    When they donate eggs or sperm to others, some LGBTQ+ people may stay involved in the child’s life as a close family friend or co-parent.

    Connection and care, not DNA

    While mitochondrial replacement therapy is a remarkable advance in gene technology, it is unlikely to open new pathways to parenthood for LGBTQ+ people in Australia.

    Asserting the importance of families based on choice – not biology or what technology is available – has been crucial to the LGBTQ+ community’s story and to rainbow families’ fight to be recognised.

    Decades of research now shows children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as any other child. What matters is parents’ consistency, love and quality of care.

    Jennifer Power receives funding from the Australian Department of Health, Disability and Aged Care and the Australian Research Council.

    ref. Here’s why 3-person embryos are a breakthrough for science – but not LGBTQ+ families – https://theconversation.com/heres-why-3-person-embryos-are-a-breakthrough-for-science-but-not-lgbtq-families-261462

    MIL OSI