Category: Australia

MIL-OSI Australia: What are the SMSF investment restrictions?
Source: New places to play in Gungahlin

About SMSF investment restrictions

Before you make any decisions on self-managed super fund (SMSF) investments, you must ensure you understand any restrictions on SMSF investments.

There are some exceptions, however, generally your SMSF must not:
- lend or provide financial assistance to members or related parties
- acquire assets from members or related parties
- use collectables and personal use assets in a way that provides a present-day benefit
- allow trust distributions owing to the SMSF to remain unpaid
- breach the in-house asset rules
- borrow money.
No one associated with your SMSF should get a present-day benefit from its investments.

If you don’t comply with the investment restrictions, we may take a range of actions, including:
- imposing penalties
- making the fund non-complying
- disqualifying you as a trustee
- prosecution of trustees.
A related party of your SMSF includes:
- all members of your fund
- associates of fund members, which include
  - the relatives of each member
  - the business partners of each member
  - any spouse or child of those business partners
  - any company or trust the member or their associates control or influence
- standard employer-sponsors (employers who contribute to your SMSF for the benefit of a member under an arrangement between the employer and a trustee of your fund)
- associates of standard employer-sponsors, which include
  - business partners and companies or trusts the employer controls (either alone or with their other associates)
  - companies and trusts that control the employer
  - relatives of an employer sponsor.
A relative is any of the following:
- a parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child of the member or their spouse
- a spouse of the member and any individual specified above.
Loans and financial assistance
Your SMSF can’t provide loans, or direct or indirect financial assistance, to a member or a member’s relative. For example, you can’t use your SMSF as guarantor for a loan for a member or a member’s relative.

Loans must:
- be in the best interests of the members
- comply with the SMSF’s investment strategy
- be conducted on a commercial arm’s length basis.
If you run a business through your SMSF, you also can’t overpay a member or relative of a member for their services. If you employ a member or a relative of a member, their salary or wage must not be higher than the standard salary for that type of role.
Acquiring assets

Your SMSF can’t acquire an asset from a related party unless the price reflects the market value and is:
- business real property
- an asset specifically excluded from being an in-house asset.
You must also ensure the market value of your fund’s in-house assets doesn’t exceed 5% of the total market value of your fund’s assets.

Crypto assets and private company shares are not listed securities and can’t be acquired from a related party.

If an asset is not acquired or sold at arm’s length, all or part of any income from the transaction may be non-arm’s length income and taxed at the highest marginal rate.

To help you comply with the requirements, use the valuation guidelines for self-managed super funds.

Collectables and personal use assets

Where your fund invests in collectables and personal use assets, this must be for genuine retirement purposes, not to provide any present-day benefit.

Assets such as artwork, boats, jewellery, vintage cars and wine are described as collectables and personal use assets.

Natural diamonds (including pink diamonds), when held in loose form, are not considered collectable or personal use assets. As such, they do not have specific storage and insurance requirements. However, for these types of assets we recommend trustees:
- hold adequate insurance
- consider storage arrangements.
‘Diamonds held in loose form’ means they cannot be mounted, integrated into or used as an item for adornment or other purposes which would be inconsistent with the holding of the diamond in loose form for investment purposes.

Collectables and personal use assets can’t be:
- used by or leased to a related party (if leased to an unrelated party it must be at arm’s length)
- stored or displayed in the private residence of a related party (this includes all parts of the land the residence is situated on and all buildings on that land, such as garages or sheds)
- displayed in any other premises owned by a related party (they can be stored there provided they’re not visible to clients and employees).
You must keep a written record of the reason for deciding where to store the assets.

Collectables and personal use assets must be insured. You should consider the availability and cost of insurance before investing in them. Items must be insured within 7 days of the fund acquiring them and the fund must be listed as the owner and beneficiary of the policy.

These assets can be sold to related parties provided the sale is at market value as determined by a qualified, independent valuer.

Unpaid trust distributions
If your SMSF is entitled to a distribution from a related trust but you allow it to remain unpaid, you may contravene the:
- in-house asset rules
- arm’s length rule
- sole purpose test.
For more information on unpaid trust distributions, see SMSFR 2009/3 Self Managed Superannuation Funds: application of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to unpaid trust distributions payable to a Self Managed Superannuation Fund.

In-house assets
You are restricted from having in-house assets that comprise more than 5% of the market value of the SMSF’s total assets.

An in-house asset is any of the following:
- a loan to a related party of your fund
- an investment in a related party of your fund
- an asset of your fund that is leased to a related party, such as business equipment or machinery.
Any lease must be made on an arm’s length basis and reflect the market value.

If at the end of the financial year your SMSF’s in-house assets exceed 5%, you must prepare a written plan to reduce in-house assets to 5% or below. This plan must be prepared before the end of the following financial year. Trustees must also ensure the plan is carried out.

There are some exceptions to in-house assets, including:
- business real property that is leased between your fund and a related party of your fund
- some investments in related non-geared trusts or companies.
The in-house asset rules for assets owned before 11 August 1999 were defined differently. If your SMSF owns assets that were acquired before this date, you should review your fund’s investments to ensure you are complying with the current rules.

Decrease in asset values due to COVID-19

Some SMSFs may have experienced a decrease in asset values due to the economic impact of COVID-19. If this resulted in a breach of the in-house asset rules as at 30 June 2020, or the in-house assets being more than 5% of the total assets, the fund was required to prepare and implement a rectification plan by 30 June 2021.

For further information, definitions and examples about in-house assets, see Self Managed Superannuation Funds Ruling SMSFR 2009/4 Self Managed Superannuation Funds: the meaning of ‘asset’, ‘loan’, ‘investment in’, ‘lease’ and ‘lease arrangement’ in the definition of an ‘in-house asset’ in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.

Business real property
Business real property generally means land and buildings used wholly and exclusively in a business. It’s an exception to the in-house asset and related party acquisition rules.

If business real property contains a dwelling for private or domestic purposes such as a farm, it can still meet the requirements of being used wholly and exclusively in a business if:
- any dwelling used for private or domestic purposes is in an area of land no more than 2 hectares, and
- the main use of the whole property is not for domestic or private purposes.
For detailed information, examples and our view on business real property, see Self Managed Superannuation Funds Ruling SMSFR 2009/1 Self Managed Superannuation Funds: business real property for the purposes of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.

Running a business in an SMSF
If running a business through an SMSF, it must be:
- allowed under the trust deed
- operated for the sole purpose of providing retirement benefits for fund members.
The rules governing SMSFs prohibit or limit some activities available to other businesses, such as entering into credit arrangements or having overdrafts.

You should get professional advice before running a business through your SMSF.

It is important to ensure the sole purpose test is not breached. Issues that attract our attention include those where:
- the trustee employs a family member (we look at things like the stated rationale for employing the family member and the salary or wages paid)
- the ‘business’ is an activity commonly performed as a hobby or pastime
- the business run by the fund has links to associated trading entities
- there are indications the fund’s business assets are available for the private use and benefit of the trustee or related parties.
MIL OSI News –
April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: Graduation time for Course 79

Source: New South Wales – News

Easter may have come and gone but celebrations continued at South Australia Police’s (SAPOL) academy this afternoon for Course 79’s graduation.

Ranging in age from 22 to 35, 11 men and three women begin their policing careers after 9.5 months of thorough training.

The 14 new police officers bring a variety of former work experience, including from retail, grain testing, health and fitness, refrigeration, and as Police Security Officers.

Prior to joining SAPOL, Sam was working as a personal trainer and enjoyed hitting the jiu-jitsu mats.

“I’ve always wanted to be a police officer, but what started off as wanting to fight crime, became a desire to do something more with my life and partake in an exciting, challenging and rewarding career,” he said.

“Following my time at the academy, I’m a more self-assured, confident and capable individual.”

Fellow graduate Renae alternated seasonal jobs grain testing and cellar hand vintage work, with working as a refit merchandiser before becoming a police officer.

“This experience will benefit me in policing as no two working days were the same, and I have a variety of different skills,” she said.

“I am excited to see where my career will take me as there are endless opportunities in different areas of policing.”

Dylan was working as an RAA retail sales consultant before joining SAPOL and has played cricket since a young age.

“Policing appealed to me since I was young, and this is due to the difference police make in the community and even being able to help one person who is having their worst day,” he said.

“I have gained better conversational skills as well as dealing with people more confidently.”

Sam hopes to one day work in STAR Operations, while Renae is open to any SAPOL career path but particularly interested in Dog Operations Unit, and Dylan has ambitions to become a District Duty Inspector and would love to eventually work in the executive leadership team.

Sam encouraged anyone interested in a SAPOL career to “put the work in”.

“If you feel you will struggle with the fitness side of the training, train. If you feel it will be the academic portion, you’ll have a hard time with, study,” he said.

Renae said the past 9.5 months have been the toughest but most rewarding she had experienced.

“If you’re thinking about joining, now is the time,” she encouraged.

Dylan similarly urged people looking for a new career to “just go for it”.

“It is a great time to join, and you will make lifelong friends,” he added.

“Make sure you have some good study habits and fitness habits when you join.”

Course 79 members will be stationed to metropolitan and regional postings, including Whyalla, Port Pirie, and Port Augusta.

SAPOL is currently recruiting and is keen to hear from people interested in an inspiring career with unmatched experiences and rewards.

If you’re looking for job security, career progression pathways and a chance to make a real difference in local communities visit Achievemore – Join Us (police.sa.gov.au)

Sam, Renae, and Dylan are excited to embark on new policing careers after today graduating from Course 79.

MIL OSI News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: Who will the next pope be? Here are some top contenders

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

The death of Pope Francis this week marks the end of a historic papacy and the beginning of a significant transition for the Catholic Church. As the faithful around the world mourn his passing, attention now turns to the next phase: the election of a new pope.

This election will take place through a process known as the conclave. Typically held two to three weeks after a pope’s funeral, the conclave gathers the College of Cardinals in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel. Here, through prayer, reflection and secret ballots, they must reach a two-thirds majority to choose the next Bishop of Rome.

While, in theory, any baptised Catholic man can be elected, for the past seven centuries the role has gone to a cardinal. That said, the outcome can still be unpredictable – sometimes even surprising the electors themselves.

Read more:
How will a new pope be chosen? An expert explains the conclave

An unlikely candidate

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio – who became Pope Francis – wasn’t among the front-runners in 2013. Nonetheless, after five rounds of voting, he emerged as the top candidate. Something similar could happen again.

This conclave will take place during a time of tension and change within the church. Francis sought to decentralise Vatican authority, emphasised caring for the poor and the planet, and tried to open dialogue on sensitive issues such as LGBTQIA+ inclusion and clerical abuse. The cardinals must now decide whether to continue in this direction, or steer towards a more traditional course.

There is historical precedent to consider. For centuries, Italians dominated the papacy. Of the 266 popes, 217 have been Italian.

However, this pattern has shifted in recent decades: Francis was from Argentina, John Paul II (1978–2005) from Poland, and Benedict XVI (2005–2013) from Germany.

The top papabili

As with any election, observers are speaking of their “favourites”. The term papabile, which in Italian means “pope-able”, or “capable of becoming pope”, is used to describe cardinals who are seen as serious contenders.

Among the leading papabili is Cardinal Pietro Parolin, aged 70, the current Secretary of State of Vatican City. Parolin has long been one of Francis’ closest collaborators and has led efforts to open dialogue with difficult regimes, including the Chinese Communist Party.

Parolin is seen as a centrist figure who could appeal to both reform-minded and more conservative cardinals. Yet some observers argue he lacks the charismatic and pastoral presence that helped define Francis’ papacy.

Another name to watch is Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. At 60, he is younger than many of his colleagues, but brings extensive experience in interfaith dialogue in the Middle East. His fluency in Hebrew and his long service in the Holy Land could prove appealing.

Then again, his relative youth may cause hesitation among those concerned about electing a pope who could serve for decades. As the papacy of John Paul II demonstrated, such long reigns can have a profound impact on the church.

Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines is also frequently mentioned. Now 67, Tagle is known for his deep commitment to social justice and the poor. He has spoken out against human rights abuses in his home country and has often echoed Francis’ pastoral tone. But some cardinals may worry that his outspoken political views could complicate the church’s diplomatic efforts.

Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, now 76, was a prominent figure during the last conclave. A strong voice on environmental and economic justice, he has served under both Benedict XVI and Francis.

Turkson has largely upheld the church’s traditional teachings on matters such as male-only priesthood, marriage between a man and a woman, and sexuality. He is also a strong advocate for transparency, and has spoken out against corruption and in defence of human rights.

Though less widely known among the public, Cardinal Mykola Bychok of Melbourne may also be considered. His election would be as surprising (and perhaps as symbolically powerful) as that of John Paul II in 1978. A Ukrainian-Australian pope, chosen during the ongoing war in Ukraine, would send a strong message about the church’s concern for suffering peoples and global peace.

Other names that may come up are Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Cardinal Jaime Spengler of Brazil – both of whom lead large and growing Catholic communities. Although news reports don’t always list them among the top contenders, their influence within their regions – and the need to recognise the church’s global demographic shifts – means their voices will matter.

On the more conservative side is American Cardinal Raymond Burke, who had been one of Francis’ most vocal critics. But his confrontational stance makes him an unlikely candidate.

More plausible would be Cardinal Péter Erdő of Hungary, aged 71. Erdő is a respected canon lawyer with a more traditional theological orientation. He was mentioned in 2013 and may reemerge as a promising candidate among conservative cardinals.

Cardinal Péter Erdő was ordained as a priest in 1975 and has a doctorate in theology. He will be a top pick among conservatives.
Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

One tough act to follow

Although Francis appointed many of the cardinals who will vote in the conclave, that doesn’t mean all of them supported his agenda. Many come from communities with traditional values, and may be drawn to a candidate who emphasises older church teachings.

The conclave will also reflect broader questions of geography. The church’s growth has shifted away from Europe, to Asia, Africa and Latin America. A pope from one of these regions could symbolise this change, and speak more directly to the challenges faced by Catholic communities in the Global South.

Ultimately, predicting a conclave is impossible. Dynamics often change once the cardinals enter the Sistine Chapel and begin voting. Alliances shift, new names emerge, and consensus may form around someone who was barely discussed beforehand.

What is certain is that the next pope will shape the church’s future: doctrinally, diplomatically and pastorally. Whether he chooses to build on Francis’ legacy of reform, or move in a new direction, he will need to balance ancient traditions with the urgent realities of the modern world.

Darius von Guttner Sporzynski 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. Who will the next pope be? Here are some top contenders – https://theconversation.com/who-will-the-next-pope-be-here-are-some-top-contenders-255006

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: Feeling mad? New research suggests mindfulness could help manage anger and aggression

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Siobhan O’Dean, Research Fellow, The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of Sydney

Kaboompics.com/Pexels

There’s no shortage of things to feel angry about these days. Whether it’s politics, social injustice, climate change or the cost-of-living crisis, the world can feel like a pressure cooker.

Research suggests nearly one-quarter of the world’s population feels angry on any given day. While anger is a normal human emotion, if it’s intense and poorly managed, it can quickly lead to aggression, and potentially cause harm.

Feeling angry often can also have negative effects on our relationships, as well as our mental and physical health.

So how should you manage feelings of anger to keep them in check? Our new research suggests mindfulness can be an effective tool for regulating anger and reducing aggression.

What is mindfulness?

Mindfulness is the ability to observe and focus on your thoughts, emotions and bodily sensations in the present moment with acceptance and without judgement.

Mindfulness has been practised for thousands of years, most notably in Buddhist traditions. But more recently it has been adapted into secular programs to support mental health and emotional regulation.

Mindfulness is taught in a variety of ways, including in-person classes, residential retreats and through digital apps. These programs typically involve guided meditations, and practices that help people become more aware of their thoughts, feelings and surroundings.

Mindfulness is linked to a range of mental health benefits, including reduced anxiety, depression and stress.

Neuroscience research also suggests mindfulness is associated with reduced activity in brain regions linked to emotional reactivity, and greater activity in those involved in self-regulation (the ability to manage our thoughts, emotions and behaviours).

In this way, mindfulness could foster emotional awareness essential for the effective regulation of emotions such as anger. And when people are less overwhelmed by anger, they may be better able to think clearly, reflect on what matters and take meaningful action, rather than reacting impulsively or shutting down.

Anger is a normal human emotion – but it can sometimes have destructive consequences.
Inzmam Khan/Pexels

We reviewed the evidence

To better understand whether mindfulness actually helps with regulating anger and aggression, we conducted a meta-analysis. This is a study that combines the results of many previous studies to look at the overall evidence.

We analysed findings from 118 studies across different populations and countries, including both people who were naturally more mindful and people who were randomly assigned to take part in interventions aimed at increasing mindfulness.

People who were naturally more mindful were those who scored higher on questionnaires measuring traits such as present-moment awareness and non-judgmental thinking. We found these people tended to report less anger and behave less aggressively.

However, mindfulness isn’t just something you have or don’t have – it’s also a skill you can develop. And our results show the benefits of lower anger and aggression extend to people who learn mindfulness skills through practice or training.

We also wanted to know whether mindfulness might work better for certain people or in particular settings. Interestingly, our results suggest these benefits are broadly universal. Practising mindfulness was effective in reducing anger and aggression across different age groups, genders and contexts, including whether people were seeking treatment for mental health or general wellbeing, or not.

Some anger management strategies aren’t backed by science

To manage feelings of anger, many people turn to strategies that are not supported by evidence.

Research suggests “letting off steam” while thinking about your anger is not a healthy strategy and may intensify and prolong experiences of anger.

For example, in one experiment, research participants were asked to hit a punching bag while thinking of someone who made them angry. This so-called “cathartic release” made people angrier and more aggressive rather than less so.

Breaking things in rage rooms, while increasingly popular, is similarly not an evidence-based strategy for reducing anger and aggression.

On the other hand, our research shows there’s good evidence to support mindfulness as a tool to regulate anger.

Mindfulness may reduce anger and aggression by helping people become more aware of their emotional reactions without immediately acting on them. It can foster a non-judgmental and accepting stance toward difficult emotions such as anger, which may interrupt the cycle whereby anger leads to aggressive behaviour.

Mindfulness can help people become more aware of their emotions.
New Africa/Shutterstock

Mindfulness is not a magic bullet

All that said, it’s important to keep in mind that mindfulness is not a magic bullet or a quick fix. Like any new skill, mindfulness can be challenging at first, takes time to master, and works best when practised regularly.

It’s also important to note mindfulness may not be suitable for everyone – particularly when used as a standalone approach for managing more complex mental health concerns. For ongoing emotional challenges it’s always a good idea to seek support from a qualified mental health professional.

However, if you’re looking to dial down the impact of daily frustrations, there are plenty of accessible ways to give mindfulness a go. You can get started with just a few minutes per day. Popular apps such as Smiling Mind and Headspace offer short, guided sessions that make it easy to explore mindfulness at your own pace — no prior experience needed.

While mindfulness may not solve the problems that make us angry, our research shows it could help improve how we experience and respond to them.

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. Feeling mad? New research suggests mindfulness could help manage anger and aggression – https://theconversation.com/feeling-mad-new-research-suggests-mindfulness-could-help-manage-anger-and-aggression-254391

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: Why do Labor and the Coalition have so many similar policies? It’s simple mathematics

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabriele Gratton, Professor of Politics and Economics and ARC Future Fellow, UNSW Sydney

Pundits and political scientists like to repeat that we live in an age of political polarisation. But if you sat through the second debate between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition leader Peter Dutton last Wednesday night, you’d be forgiven for asking what polarisation people are talking about.

While the two candidates may have different values, as Albanese said, the policies they propose and the view of society they have put forward in this campaign don’t differ so much.

Why so similar?

On housing supply, Dutton promises to help local councils solve development bottlenecks. The PM says his government is already starting to do the same thing.

To tackle the cost-of-living crisis, one wants to reduce the government’s cut of petrol prices. The other is having the government pay for part of our energy bills.

What about the future of a multicultural Australia? One party says they’ll cap international student numbers to lower immigration. The other is trying to do precisely the same. (Even though the policy may be irrelevant to near-future immigration and have little impact on housing costs.)

Surely, you might think, many Australians must have more progressive ideas than those Albanese is proposing. And surely many Australians would like more conservative policies than those Dutton is coming up with.

If that’s the case, you’re probably wondering: why are the two leaders focusing their campaigns on such similar platforms?

Lining up the voters

More than 70 years ago, the same questions motivated the work of economists Duncan Black and Anthony Downs. In fact, social scientists had been fascinated by these questions since the Marquis de Condorcet, a philosopher and mathematician, first attempted a mathematical analysis of majority voting at the time of the French Revolution.

Black and Downs both arrived at a striking conclusion: when two candidates compete to win a majority of votes, they will converge their electoral campaign on (roughly) identical policies, even when the voters at large have very differing policy preferences.

Their argument, sometimes referred to as the Median Voter Theorem, goes as follows.

Imagine we could line up all 18,098,797 Australian enrolled voters from the most progressive at the extreme left to the most conservative at the extreme right. Then, a choice of electoral platform by a candidate may be imagined as the candidate placing himself somewhere on this ideal line up of voters.

Now imagine Albanese were to propose a strongly progressive platform and Dutton were to opt for a strongly conservative one. Naturally, those voters “closer” to Albanese’s platform will probably put Labor ahead of the Coalition in their ballot. Similarly, those closer to Dutton will put the Coalition ahead.

Let us imagine that in this situation Albanese would secure a majority of seats. What could Dutton do to win? The answer is: move a bit to the left.

In doing so, Dutton would win over some voters who were previously closer to Albanese than to himself. Meanwhile, all the voters to the right of Dutton will remain closer to him than to Albanese. The net result would be simply a swing in favour of Dutton.

The problem of where to set up shop

In 1957, Downs realised that the problem of choosing where to place your platform to attract more voters has the the same mathematical form as the problem firms face when choosing where to place their outlets to attract more customers. Harold Hotelling, a mathematical statistician and economist, had studied the firms’ problem in 1929. So Downs could simply apply Hotelling’s mathematical tool to his new political problem.

Downs showed that, as Dutton and Albanese compete for voters, they will end up converging to the same platform. One that does not allow for a further move that can swing voters. This platform will be what social choice scholars call a Condorcet winner, meaning more than half of voters would choose it over any other platform.

In fact, there is only one such platform: the policy preferred by a voter who is more conservative than exactly half of the voters and more progressive than exactly half of the voters. The voter exactly in the middle of our idealised line-up. The median voter.

A centrist equilibrium

When Albanese and Dutton are both proposing the median voter’s preferred platform, they both have about the same chances of winning the election: 50%. However, neither can do anything to improve their chances.

In this situation, if Dutton were to move a little more right, he would simply lose to Albanese some of the voters just to the right of the median voter. If Albanese were to move a little more left, he would lose to Dutton some of the voters just left of the median voter.

They are in what game theorists call a Nash equilibrium: a situation where neither of them can gain by changing their strategy.

Not literal, but still illuminating

Downs’ result should not be taken literally.

Politicians may have inherent motivations to promote certain policies, beyond just winning votes. And sometimes political leaders can offer new views of society, changing how voters think about what a just and prosperous future should look like.

However, at least with leaders like Albanese and Dutton, and in the presence of a (mostly) two-party system like in Australia, Downs’ model shows us what the democratic electoral process tends towards: parties that compete to appeal to the most median centrist voters.

Gabriele Gratton is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT210100176, “Resilient Democracy for the 21st Century”) and his research is supported under the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (Project DP240103257, “The Economics of (Mis)Information in the Age of Social Media”).

– ref. Why do Labor and the Coalition have so many similar policies? It’s simple mathematics – https://theconversation.com/why-do-labor-and-the-coalition-have-so-many-similar-policies-its-simple-mathematics-254804

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: LDV Automotive Australia in court for alleged misleading advertising
Source: Australian Ministers for Regional Development

The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Ateco Automotive Pty Ltd, trading as LDV Automotive Australia, (LDV) for allegedly making misleading representations to consumers about the durability and suitability of particular models of LDV branded vehicles in breach of the Australian Consumer Law. The ACCC alleges that those vehicles had a propensity to rust or corrode within five years of being manufactured.

It is alleged that during various periods of time between approximately 23 April 2019 and 30 November 2024, LDV made misleading representations to consumers that models with T60 and G10 in their names (excluding the eT60) were durable and tough, and that they were suitable for use in, near, or on, a variety of environments and off-road terrains.

LDV made these alleged representations in advertisements published on various mediums including its website, television, radio, Facebook and Instagram, which often portrayed the vehicles on beaches; near lakes, rivers or other pooled water; or on unsealed roads, or in dirt or gravel terrain.

The ACCC alleges the relevant T60 and G10 vehicle models had a propensity to develop rust or corrosion within the first five years from the date of manufacture, and therefore the advertised LDV vehicles, including those in which rust or corrosion occurred, were not durable and tough.

It is also alleged that the propensity to rust, which increased if the vehicles were used in, near or on certain terrains, made the advertised vehicles, including the vehicles in which rust occurred, not suitable for use in, near, or on, the advertised terrains.

“A new car is a significant financial purchase, and consumers rightfully expect that the vehicle they purchase will live up to the quality and uses that it was advertised to include,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.

The ACCC also alleges that in advertising a 10-year anti-corrosion warranty between 23 April 2019 and 31 August 2020, LDV made representations to consumers that the relevant T60 vehicle models did not have a material risk of developing rust or corrosion in the first 10 years of manufacture. The ACCC alleges that these representations were false or misleading due to the propensity for those vehicles to develop rust or corrosion.

In addition or instead, the ACCC alleges that, by April 2019, LDV was aware that rust or corrosion issues were prevalent in the T60 and G10 vehicle models within the first five years of being manufactured, and that the representations alleged in the case were false or misleading because LDV did not have a reasonable basis to make the representations.

Between approximately January 2018 and November 2024, LDV received more than 5,000 consumer complaints regarding rust or corrosion in its T60 and G10 vehicle models, usually via LDV dealerships.

“We allege that despite being aware of the propensity for the vehicles to rust, LDV continued to make representations for a number of years that the T60 and G10 vehicles were durable and suitable for use in a variety of terrains,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“As a result, we allege that LDV’s conduct is likely to have caused harm to affected consumers, including because the propensity for rust or corrosion lowered the value of their vehicles, and because consumers lost the opportunity to make an informed decision that may have involved purchasing an alternative vehicle that did not carry the same risks.”

The ACCC is seeking penalties, declarations, consumer redress, costs and other orders.

Examples of the allegedly misleading statements used in LDV’s advertisements
- The T60 is up to any challenge you care to take on – work or play, on-road or off… It turns the toughest tracks into a walk in the park.
- The T60 Ute has the tough build and all the robust features needed to take you anywhere, be it work or play.
- Who needs roads when you’re driving a T60?
- Why take a long walk on the beach when you could take a drive in the LDV T60 Ute?
- G10s are built to stand up to the everyday and so much more.
Background

Ateco is an Australian vehicle importer that trades under various business names, including LDV Automotive Australia.

Ateco is headquartered in NSW and has imported cars to Australia and New Zealand since 1985. Ateco currently distributes LDV branded vehicles and other vehicles through dealerships in Australia.

Ateco is the exclusive importer of LDV branded vehicles in Australia. Its range of models includes both commercial and passenger vehicles, such as the T60 Max Ute, G10 Van and D90 SUV. LDV vehicles are generally priced between $36,000 to $65,000.

There are 102 LDV dealerships across Australia, with locations in every state and territory. The majority of LDV dealerships are located in New South Wales (31), Victoria (25) and Queensland (22).

Between the years 2018 to 2024 (inclusive), LDV’s dealerships sold more than 60,000 T60 and G10 vehicle models which generated more than $1.5 billion in revenue (excluding GST).

MIL OSI News –
April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for April 23, 2025

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

The ‘responsible gambling’ mantra does nothing to prevent harm. It probably makes things worse
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University Haelen Haagen/Shutterstock Recent royal commissions and inquiries into Crown and Star casino groups attracted much media attention. Most of this was focused on money laundering and other illegalities. The Victorian royal commission found widespread

This election, Gen Z and Millennials hold most of the voting power. How might they wield it?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Intifar Chowdhury, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University The centre of gravity of Australian politics has shifted. Millennials and Gen Z voters, now comprising 47% of the electorate, have taken over as the dominant voting bloc. But this generational shift isn’t just about numerical dominance. It’s also about

Only a third of Australians support increasing defence spending: new research
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Dunley, Senior Lecturer in History and Maritime Strategy, UNSW Sydney National security issues have been a constant feature of this federal election campaign. Both major parties have spruiked their national security credentials by promising additional defence spending. The Coalition has pledged to spend 3% of Australia’s

After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne In Canada, the governing centre-left Liberals had trailed the Conservatives by more than 20 points in January, but now lead by five points and are likely to

The Greens are hoping for another ‘greenslide’ election. What do the polls say?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Miragliotta, Associate Professor in Politics, Murdoch University Election talk is inevitably focused on Labor and the Coalition because they are the parties that customarily form government. But a minor party like the Greens is consequential, regardless of whether the election delivers a minority government. Certainly, the

Victory for US press freedom and workers – court grants injunction in VOA media case
Asia Pacific Report The US District Court for the District of Columbia has granted a preliminary injunction in Widakuswara v Lake, affirming the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) was unlawfully shuttered by the Trump administration, Acting Director Victor Morales and Special Adviser Kari Lake. The decision enshrines that USAGM must fulfill its legally required

Scientists claim to have found evidence of alien life. But ‘biosignatures’ might hide more than they reveal
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Campbell Rider, PhD Candidate in Philosophy – Philosophy of Biology, University of Sydney Artist’s impression of the exoplanet K2-18b A. Smith/N. Madhusudhan (University of Cambridge) Whether or not we’re alone in the universe is one of the biggest questions in science. A recent study, led by astrophysicist Nikku

What would change your mind about climate change? We asked 5,000 Australians – here’s what they told us
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelly Kirkland, Research Fellow in Psychology, The University of Queensland LOOKSLIKEPHOTO/Shutterstock Australia just sweltered through one of its hottest summers on record, and heat has pushed well into autumn. Once-in-a-generation floods are now striking with alarming regularity. As disasters escalate, insurers are warning some properties may soon

Even experts disagree over whether social media is bad for kids. We examined why
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Knight, Associate Professor, Transdisciplinary School, University of Technology Sydney A low relief sculpture depicting Plato and Aristotle arguing adorning the external wall of Florence Cathedral. Krikkiat/Shutterstock Disagreement and uncertainty are common features of everyday life. They’re also common and expected features of scientific research. Despite this,

Australian women are wary of AI being used in breast cancer screening – new research
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Pearce, Associate Professor, Health Economics, University of Sydney Okrasiuk/Shutterstock Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly relevant in many aspects of society, including health care. For example, it’s already used for robotic surgery and to provide virtual mental health support. In recent years, scientists have developed AI

These 3 climate misinformation campaigns are operating during the election run-up. Here’s how to spot them
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alfie Chadwick, PhD Candidate, Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub, Monash University Australia’s climate and energy wars are at the forefront of the federal election campaign as the major parties outline vastly different plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle soaring power prices. Meanwhile, misinformation about

Port of Darwin’s struggling Chinese leaseholder may welcome an Australian buy-out
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colin Hawes, Associate professor of law, University of Technology Sydney Slow Walker/Shutterstock Far from causing trade frictions, an Australian buyout of the Port of Darwin lease may provide a lifeline for its struggling Chinese parent company Landbridge Group. Both Labor and the Coalition have proposed such a

When rock music met ancient archeology: the enduring power of Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Barker, Head, Public Engagement, Chau Chak Wing Museum, University of Sydney Sony Music The 1972 concert film Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii, back in cinemas this week, remains one of the most unique concert documentaries ever recorded by a rock band. The movie captured the band

Gambling in Australia: how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Russell, Principal Research Fellow, CQUniversity Australia Mick Tsikas/AAP, Joel Carret/AAP, Darren England/AAP, Ihor Koptilin/Shutterstock, The Conversation, CC BY Gambling prevalence studies provide a snapshot of gambling behaviour, problems and harm in our communities. They are typically conducted about every five years. In some Australian states and

Lest we forget? Aside from Anzac Day, NZ has been slow to remember its military veterans
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato Fiona Goodall/Getty Images Following some very public protests, including Victoria Cross recipient Willie Apiata handing back his medal, the government’s announcement of an expanded official definition of the term “veteran” brings some good news for former military personnel ahead

Dutton promises Coalition would increase defence spending to 3% of GDP ‘within a decade’
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will promise a Coalition government would boost Australia’s spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP within five years and 3% within a decade. Launching the Coalition’s long-awaited defence policy on Wednesday in Western Australia, Dutton will

Leaders trade barbs and well-worn lines in unspectacular third election debate
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, Visitor, School of History, Australian National University Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton have met for the third leaders’ debate of this election campaign, this time on the Nine network. And while the debate traversed much of the same ground as the first two, the quick-fire

Election Diary: Dutton in third debate gives Labor ammunition for its scare about cuts
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra In the leaders’ third head-to-head encounter, on Nine on Tuesday, Peter Dutton’s bluntness when pressed on cuts has given more ammunition to Labor’s scare campaign about what a Coalition government might do. “When John Howard came into power, there was

To truly understand Pope Francis’ theology – and impact – you need to look to his life in Buenos Aires
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fernanda Peñaloza, Senior Lecturer in Latin American Studies, University of Sydney Pope Francis’ journey from the streets of Flores, a neighbourhood in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to the Vatican, is a remarkable tale. Born in 1936, Jorge Bergoglio was raised in a middle-class family of Italian Catholic immigrants.

Bougainville takes the initiative in mediation over independence
By Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist In recent weeks, Bougainville has taken the initiative, boldly stating that it expects to be independent by 1 September 2027. It also expects the PNG Parliament to quickly ratify the 2019 referendum, in which an overwhelming majority of Bougainvilleans supported independence. In a third move, it established a

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: MRF-D 25.3 surges forward for Balikatan

Source: United States INDO PACIFIC COMMAND

PUERTO PRINCESA, Philippines – Following the successful completion of Marine Exercise 2025 in Mindanao, the Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) 25.3 Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) seamlessly repositioned it’s ground combat element (GCE) forces from Mindanao to Palawan, Philippines, as a show of allied and partner commitment to regional security and building maritime domain awareness in support of Exercise Balikatan 25.

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Combined Strength and Shared Commitment: MRF-D 25.3 concludes MAREX 25

Source: United States INDO PACIFIC COMMAND

CAMP IRANUM, Mindanao, Philippines – U.S. Marines with 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, Marine Rotational Force – Darwin 25.3, concluded a two-week bilateral exercise alongside the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) during Marine Exercise (MAREX) 25, held from March 31 to April 11 in Mindanao.

MIL Security OSI –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: Who will the next pope be? Here are some top contenders

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University

The death of Pope Francis this week marks the end of a historic papacy and the beginning of a significant transition for the Catholic Church. As the faithful around the world mourn his passing, attention now turns to the next phase: the election of a new pope.

This election will take place through a process known as the conclave. Typically held two to three weeks after a pope’s funeral, the conclave gathers the College of Cardinals in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel. Here, through prayer, reflection and secret ballots, they must reach a two-thirds majority to choose the next Bishop of Rome.

While, in theory, any baptised Catholic man can be elected, for the past seven centuries the role has gone to a cardinal. That said, the outcome can still be unpredictable – sometimes even surprising the electors themselves.

Read more:
How will a new pope be chosen? An expert explains the conclave

An unlikely candidate

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio – who became Pope Francis – wasn’t among the front-runners in 2013. Nonetheless, after five rounds of voting, he emerged as the top candidate. Something similar could happen again.

This conclave will take place during a time of tension and change within the church. Francis sought to decentralise Vatican authority, emphasised caring for the poor and the planet, and tried to open dialogue on sensitive issues such as LGBTQIA+ inclusion and clerical abuse. The cardinals must now decide whether to continue in this direction, or steer towards a more traditional course.

There is historical precedent to consider. For centuries, Italians dominated the papacy. Of the 266 popes, 217 have been Italian.

However, this pattern has shifted in recent decades: Francis was from Argentina, John Paul II (1978–2005) from Poland, and Benedict XVI (2005–2013) from Germany.

The top papabili

As with any election, observers are speaking of their “favourites”. The term papabile, which in Italian means “pope-able”, or “capable of becoming pope”, is used to describe cardinals who are seen as serious contenders.

Among the leading papabili is Cardinal Pietro Parolin, aged 70, the current Secretary of State of Vatican City. Parolin has long been one of Francis’ closest collaborators and has led efforts to open dialogue with difficult regimes, including the Chinese Communist Party.

Parolin is seen as a centrist figure who could appeal to both reform-minded and more conservative cardinals. Yet some observers argue he lacks the charismatic and pastoral presence that helped define Francis’ papacy.

Another name to watch is Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. At 60, he is younger than many of his colleagues, but brings extensive experience in interfaith dialogue in the Middle East. His fluency in Hebrew and his long service in the Holy Land could prove appealing.

Then again, his relative youth may cause hesitation among those concerned about electing a pope who could serve for decades. As the papacy of John Paul II demonstrated, such long reigns can have a profound impact on the church.

Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines is also frequently mentioned. Now 67, Tagle is known for his deep commitment to social justice and the poor. He has spoken out against human rights abuses in his home country and has often echoed Francis’ pastoral tone. But some cardinals may worry that his outspoken political views could complicate the church’s diplomatic efforts.

Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, now 76, was a prominent figure during the last conclave. A strong voice on environmental and economic justice, he has served under both Benedict XVI and Francis.

Turkson has largely upheld the church’s traditional teachings on matters such as male-only priesthood, marriage between a man and a woman, and sexuality. He is also a strong advocate for transparency, and has spoken out against corruption and in defence of human rights.

Though less widely known among the public, Cardinal Mykola Bychok of Melbourne may also be considered. His election would be as surprising (and perhaps as symbolically powerful) as that of John Paul II in 1978. A Ukrainian-Australian pope, chosen during the ongoing war in Ukraine, would send a strong message about the church’s concern for suffering peoples and global peace.

Other names that may come up are Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Cardinal Jaime Spengler of Brazil – both of whom lead large and growing Catholic communities. Although news reports don’t always list them among the top contenders, their influence within their regions – and the need to recognise the church’s global demographic shifts – means their voices will matter.

On the more conservative side is American Cardinal Raymond Burke, who had been one of Francis’ most vocal critics. But his confrontational stance makes him an unlikely candidate.

More plausible would be Cardinal Péter Erdő of Hungary, aged 71. Erdő is a respected canon lawyer with a more traditional theological orientation. He was mentioned in 2013 and may reemerge as a promising candidate among conservative cardinals.

Cardinal Péter Erdő was ordained as a priest in 1975 and has a doctorate in theology. He will be a top pick among conservatives.
Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

One tough act to follow

Although Francis appointed many of the cardinals who will vote in the conclave, that doesn’t mean all of them supported his agenda. Many come from communities with traditional values, and may be drawn to a candidate who emphasises older church teachings.

The conclave will also reflect broader questions of geography. The church’s growth has shifted away from Europe, to Asia, Africa and Latin America. A pope from one of these regions could symbolise this change, and speak more directly to the challenges faced by Catholic communities in the Global South.

Ultimately, predicting a conclave is impossible. Dynamics often change once the cardinals enter the Sistine Chapel and begin voting. Alliances shift, new names emerge, and consensus may form around someone who was barely discussed beforehand.

What is certain is that the next pope will shape the church’s future: doctrinally, diplomatically and pastorally. Whether he chooses to build on Francis’ legacy of reform, or move in a new direction, he will need to balance ancient traditions with the urgent realities of the modern world.

Darius von Guttner Sporzynski 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. Who will the next pope be? Here are some top contenders – https://theconversation.com/who-will-the-next-pope-be-here-are-some-top-contenders-255006

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: Prescribed burns a health risk to skinks in Mt Lofty Ranges

Source:

23 April 2025

The skink, Lampropholis guichenoti, is at significant risk due to prescribed burning.

Prescribed burning in the Mount Lofty Ranges to reduce bushfire risks may be threatening the survival and biodiversity of skinks and other reptiles.

That’s the finding from a new University of South Australia (UniSA) study that analysed the health of more than 1750 reptiles from eight species over a two-year period.

The study, published in Forest Ecology and Management, investigated how reptiles respond to fire in native stringybark forests of the Mount Lofty Ranges, one of South Australia’s key biodiversity hotspots.

According to lead author, UniSA PhD candidate Shawn Scott, the garden skink, Lampropholis guichenoti, had “significantly poorer body condition immediately following prescribed burns”.

“This suggests that in the short term for the garden skink, fire may be depleting food sources, exposing them to predators, or otherwise stressing these animals in ways we hadn’t fully appreciated,” Scott says.

In burnt areas, skinks showed the lowest body condition scores – a key indicator of animal health – in the first six months post-fire. While their condition improved over time, the initial decline raises concerns about long-term impacts, especially with increasingly frequent burns.

Interestingly, the study found that reptiles with injuries such as tail loss (a common escape tactic known as autotomy), missing digits, or scarring had significantly lower body condition in two species. This suggests that injury, whether from predators or territorial fights exacerbated by reduced shelter, may compound the impact of fires on their health.

Reptiles recaptured at study sites also told a compelling story. The skink L. guichenoti was most often recaptured in long-unburnt forests (more than 20 years since a fire), suggesting these habitats support higher survival or lower site emigration.

South Australia’s Mount Lofty Ranges have seen an increase in prescribed fire activity in recent years, with 5% of high-risk vegetation areas targeted annually. Yet this region also contains some of the state’s most fragmented and ecologically important woodlands.

“Prescribed burns are often advocated as beneficial for biodiversity,” says Scott, “but our research adds to growing evidence that one-size-fits-all approaches to fire may be harmful to small animals. More nuanced strategies, such as preserving long-unburnt refuges and monitoring fire effects on reptiles, are urgently needed.”

The researchers used a combination of a before-after control-impact (BACI) and fire-age chronosequence experimental design across 18 sites, ranging from recently burnt to more than 20 years post-fire.

Their detailed analyses incorporated body measurements, injury records, and recapture rates, providing one of the most comprehensive evaluations to date of reptile responses to fire in South Australian forests.

The authors stress that more research is needed into the post-fire ecology of reptiles, especially in the face of climate change and increasing fire severity.

“We had La Niña, mild, conditions,” says co-author and UniSA wildlife ecologist Assoc Prof S. “Topa” Petit. “The results could be more dramatic after a drought, for example.”

“Reptiles are critical for healthy ecosystems – they control insect populations and serve as prey for birds and mammals,” says Scott. “If fire regimes are compromising their health or numbers, it could have cascading effects on the whole ecosystem.”

“Effects of prescribed fire on body condition, injury, frequency, and recapture of reptiles in Mediterranean-type eucalypt forests is authored by researchers from the University of South Australia, Mid Torrens Catchment Group, and Kangaroo Island Research Station DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2025.122683

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Contact for interview: Shawn Scott E: shawn.scott@unisa.edu.au

Media contact: Candy Gibson M: +61 434 605 142 E: candy.gibson@unisa.edu.au

MIL OSI News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: The Greens are hoping for another ‘greenslide’ election. What do the polls say?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Miragliotta, Associate Professor in Politics, Murdoch University

Election talk is inevitably focused on Labor and the Coalition because they are the parties that customarily form government.

But a minor party like the Greens is consequential, regardless of whether the election delivers a minority government. Certainly, the level of anti-Greens campaigning by third party groups, like Better Australia, suggests as much.

The Greens’ have declared that their electoral aim is to “Keep Dutton out and get Labor to act”. They know this would be best achieved in a minority government, where the crossbench would be powerful players.

But can the Greens build on their historic 2022 election result, which delivered four lower house seats and the balance of power in the Senate?

State of play

An aggregation of the main polls estimates the Greens’ nationwide primary vote has ticked up since 2022, now ranging from 12.4% to 14.1%.

They are expected to retain all six Senate seats up for election. When combined with their five other Senate seats, the party will be critical in the next parliament to the fate of legislation in the red chamber.

In the contest for the House, the Greens are defending a record four seats: Melbourne, Brisbane, Griffith and Ryan. Melbourne is held by party leader Adam Bandt, on a comfortable 8.5% margin. It is as safe as it gets for the Greens.

The balance of the party’s seats are all Brisbane-based, starting with Ryan, which is held by just 2.6% if the two-party preferred vote. Despite the slender margin, Ryan has better prospects than the neighbouring seat of Brisbane, which it holds by 3.6%. This is based on the party’s 2022 swing of almost 10%, which placed them second in Ryan on primary votes.

In contrast, the Greens finished in third position on primary votes in Brisbane on the back of a respectable, but much more modest swing of just under 5%. The electoral dynamics are also complicated because the seat is a genuine three-cornered contest.

On the other hand, Griffith is now classed as a safe seat for the Greens. The party attained the highest number of primary votes (34.6%) on the back of a 10.94% swing three years ago. The Greens should be able to defend Griffith.

Target seats

The Greens have declared five additional electorates as “priority target seats” – two in Victoria and one in each of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.

Wills is the first of two Melbourne-based seats earmarked by the Greens. The party is betting on a redistribution in the Labor held seat, which independent analyst The Poll Bludger estimates will reduce the ALP’s primary vote by 2.6% and increase the Greens’ vote by 5%. The Greens are also fielding a high profile candidate, former state MP Samantha Ratnam.

In the case of Macnamara, the Greens finished in second position behind Labor in 2022. At the point of the Greens’ exclusion in the count they were on 32.84%, just marginally behind Labor on 33.48%

While the Greens’ prospects might be helped by a weakened Victorian Labor brand, victory could still prove elusive. In the case of Macnamara, the electorate takes in parts of the state seat of Prahran, which the party lost in a byelection in February. The by-election was precipitated by the resignation of the state Greens MP owing to allegations of inappropriate conduct with an intern.

Moreover, Liberal how-to-vote cards in both Wills and Macnamara are preferencing Labor over the Greens, which may be enough to push Labor over the line in both seats.

Chances elsewhere

The NSW seat of Richmond is a marginal Labor electorate that was once held by the Nationals. The Greens are calculating the seat is winnable based on their strong primary vote in 2022 and candidate continuity.

Richmond boasts one of the highest levels of rental stress in the nation, making it a perfect setting for Greens campaigning on housing affordability issues. Polling shows the Greens vote is up by 3% in NSW. If it’s accurate, and translates to Richmond, then the seat is potentially winnable.

Sturt in South Australia is the Liberal Party’s second most marginal seat (0.5%). However, the likelihood of a Greens victory is slim. At the 2022 election the Greens attracted only 16.39% of the primary vote, well behind both Labor and the Liberals.

The party’s final target seat is Perth, held by Labor on a very safe 14.4%, two party preferred. The seat’s demography explains why it’s a Greens priority. Perth is a relatively affluent inner metropolitan seat, with a high percentage of people who finished school, and a constituency that skews young.

But Perth is unlikely to turn to the Greens. In 2022 they finished in third position on primary votes (22.16%), well behind Labor (39.25%). The party’s Perth campaign may have also been damaged by plans, since abandoned, to hold a fundraising event on ANZAC Day.

Numbers game

Based only on the seats examined, the Greens will likely retain at least Melbourne and Griffith in the lower house, along with the 6 senate seats it is defending.

A more optimistic reading of the polling would also include Ryan, Brisbane and Wills. A best case scenario would also add Richmond and Macnamara to that list.

And then, of course, there are the unexpected victories that many of us simply don’t see coming. This is because party support and voter swings are never uniform at the seat level. There will be electorates that under-perform for all parties. And that includes the Greens.

Narelle Miragliotta 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. The Greens are hoping for another ‘greenslide’ election. What do the polls say? – https://theconversation.com/the-greens-are-hoping-for-another-greenslide-election-what-do-the-polls-say-254600

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

In Canada, the governing centre-left Liberals had trailed the Conservatives by more than 20 points in January, but now lead by five points and are likely to win a majority of seats at next Monday’s election. Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump’s ratings in US national polls have dropped to a -5 net approval.

The Canadian election will be held next Monday, with the large majority of polls closing at 11:30am AEST Tuesday. The 343 MPs are elected by first past the post, with 172 seats needed for a majority.

The Liberals had looked doomed to a massive loss for a long time. In early January, the CBC Poll Tracker had given the Conservatives 44% of the vote, the Liberals 20%, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) 19%, the separatist left-wing Quebec Bloc (BQ) 9%, the Greens 4% and the far-right People’s 2%. With these vote shares, the Conservatives would have won a landslide with well over 200 seats.

At the September 2021 election, the Liberals won 160 of the then 338 seats on 32.6% of votes, the Conservatives 119 seats on 33.7%, the BQ 32 seats on 7.6%, the NDP 25 seats on 17.8%, the Greens two seats on 2.3% and the People’s zero seats on 4.9%. he Liberals were short of the 170 seats needed for a majority.

The Liberal vote was more efficiently distributed than the Conservative vote owing to the Conservatives winning safe rural seats by huge margins. The BQ benefited from vote concentration, with all its national vote coming in Quebec, where it won 32.1%.

On January 6, Justin Trudeau, who had been Liberal leader and PM since winning the October 2015 election, announced he would resign these positions once a new Liberal leader was elected. Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, was overwhelmingly elected Liberal leader on March 9 and replaced Trudeau as PM on March 14.

With the Liberals short of a parliamentary majority, parliament was prorogued for the Liberal leadership election and was due to resume on March 24. Carney is not yet an MP (he will contest Nepean at the election). Possibly owing to these factors, Carney called the election on March 23.

In Tuesday’s update to the CBC Poll Tracker, the Liberals had 43.1% of the vote, the Conservatives 38.4%, the NDP 8.3%, the BQ 5.8% (25.4% in Quebec), the Greens 2.2% and the People’s 1.4%. The Liberals have surged from 24 points behind in early January to their current 4.7-point lead.

Seat point estimates were 191 Liberals (over the 172 needed for a majority), 123 Conservatives, 23 BQ, five NDP and one Green. The tracker gives the Liberals an 80% chance to win a majority of seats and a 15% chance to win the most seats but not a majority.

The Liberal lead over the Conservatives peaked on April 8, when they led by 7.1 points. There has been slight movement back to the Conservatives since, with the French and English leaders’ debates last Wednesday and Thursday possibly assisting the Conservatives.

But the Liberals still lead by nearly five points in the polls five days before the election. With the Liberals’ vote more efficiently distributed, they are the clear favourites to win an election they looked certain to lose by a landslide margin in January.

Carney’s replacement of Trudeau has benefited the Liberals, but I believe the most important reason for the Liberals’ poll surge is Trump. Trump’s tariffs against Canada and his talk of making Canada the 51st US state have greatly alienated Canadians and made it more difficult for the more pro-Trump Conservatives.

In an early April YouGov Canadian poll, by 64–25, respondents said the US was unfriendly or an enemy rather than friendly or an ally (50–33 in February). By 84–11, they did not want Canada to become part of the US. If Canadians had been able to vote in the 2024 US presidential election, Kamala Harris would have defeated Donald Trump by 57–18 in this poll.

Trump’s US ratings have fallen well below net zero

In Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls, Trump currently has a net approval of -5.4, with 50.8% disapproving and 45.4% approving. At the start of his term, Trump’s net approval was +12, but went negative in mid-March. His ratings fell to their current level soon after Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2.

Silver has presidential approval poll data for previous presidents since Harry Truman (president from 1945–53). Trump’s current net approval is worse than for any other president at this point in their tenure except for Trump’s first term (2017–2021).

Silver also has a net favourability aggregate for Elon Musk that currently gives Musk a net favourable rating of -13.6 (53.0% unfavourable, 39.3% favourable). Musk’s ratings began to drop from about net zero before Trump’s second term commenced on January 20.

G. Elliott Morris used to manage the US poll aggregate site FiveThirtyEight before it was axed. He wrote last Friday that Trump’s net approval on the economy (at -5.8) is worse than at any point in his first term. During his first term, Trump’s net approval on the economy was mostly positive, helping to support his overall ratings.

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

– ref. After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election – https://theconversation.com/after-stunning-comeback-centre-left-liberals-likely-to-win-majority-of-seats-at-canadian-election-254926

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: Only a third of Australians support increasing defence spending: new research

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Dunley, Senior Lecturer in History and Maritime Strategy, UNSW Sydney

National security issues have been a constant feature of this federal election campaign.

Both major parties have spruiked their national security credentials by promising additional defence spending. The Coalition has pledged to spend 3% of Australia’s GDP on defence within a decade, while Labor is accelerating its own spending increase of $50 billion over the next decade.

Even the Greens have got in on the act, pledging to “decouple” Australia from the US military.

Against this backdrop, of course, is the omnipresent figure of US President Donald Trump, with questions about the reliability of the US as an ally and the impact his policy decisions will have on Australian security. The possible deployment of Russian aircraft to Indonesia and the Chinese warships sailing around Australia have made these issues even more salient.

But what do Australians actually know about defence issues, and what are they comfortable spending on it?

According to our major new survey of 1,500 Australian adults, only a third of respondents thought the defence budget should be increased.

The survey was conducted from late February to early March as part of our work at the War Studies Research Group to measure public attitudes towards the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Australians know little about the ADF’s role

More than two-thirds of our respondents said they had a positive opinion of the ADF, and only 8% held a negative opinion. There were significant differences by political affiliation, with 76% of those expecting to vote for the Liberal Party having positive views compared to 72% of Labor supporters. By contrast, only 53% of Greens supporters felt the same way.

However, when asked how much they actually knew about the ADF and its activities, only a quarter of respondents felt well-informed.

One reason for this is that only 22% of respondents served in the ADF themselves, or had an immediate family member who had. Similarly, only 35% of respondents knew a veteran.

But even public knowledge on issues that have received considerable media attention was limited.

Remarkably, only 56% of respondents were aware of the allegations that Australian Special Forces soldiers committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Less than half had heard of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

Support for increasing defence spending is mixed

Successive governments have emphasised the rapidly deteriorating strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific region. This has led to much debate over whether Australia should increase its defence spending – and by how much.

In this election, both sides have committed more resources to upgrade and expand Australia’s military capabilities.

However, despite efforts to turn defence spending into a major issue at this election (especially on the right of politics), it is far from clear this has cut through with the wider population.

Our survey reveals public support for a larger ADF is split. Just over half of respondents thought the ADF was appropriately sized, while 41% considered it too small and 7% thought it too large.

Notably, when asked whether they thought more money should be spent on defence, the support for growth shrinks further.

Liberal supporters were the most likely to favour increasing the defence budget. But only 44% of them did, suggesting a majority felt that current spending on the ADF was either appropriate or too large.

Only 28% of Labor voters supported an increase in the defence budget. And among Greens voters, those supporting cuts to the defence budget outnumbered those in favour of expansion.

Read more:
Should Australia increase its defence spending? We asked 5 experts

Most still support the US, despite Trump

Ever since the US presidential election in November, many Australians have also questioned the US alliance and the AUKUS agreement, specifically. Recent actions by Trump – most notably his public statements on the Ukraine war – have only reinforced these doubts.

Given the tone of the public debate, we expected to see lower levels of support in our survey for the US alliance as the bedrock of Australian security.

However, respondents strongly favoured (75%) the ADF continuing to prioritise working closely with allies and partners, especially the US. Only 2% opposed it. Notably, there was very little variation based on political allegiance.

However, the idea of deploying the ADF to support our allies and partners overseas, including in the event of a conflict, saw greater division among respondents.

Two-thirds favoured deploying troops to support our allies overall. Liberal voters largely supported this proposition (75%), while 64% of Labor supporters backed it. Only about half of Greens voters felt the same way.

Respondents were also asked whether Australia should focus primarily on the defence of our territory rather than supporting our allies and partners in maintaining wider regional security. Just under half (46%) of respondents agreed with this idea, while 38% expressed neutral opinions and only 17% opposed it.

Overall, the results of this survey suggest that while the Australian public generally holds the ADF in high regard, they don’t know very much about it, nor do they consider additional funding for defence and security to be a real priority.

Successive governments, intelligence agencies and military analysts have long warned of the growing threats to Australia’s national security. Our survey suggests, however, that this messaging is either not cutting through – or that other concerns, such as housing or cost-of-living pressures, are taking priority.

Either way, it does not look like this issue will be decisive in the coming election.

This piece is part of a series on the future of defence in Australia. Read the other stories here.

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. Only a third of Australians support increasing defence spending: new research – https://theconversation.com/only-a-third-of-australians-support-increasing-defence-spending-new-research-253943

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: This election, Gen Z and Millennials hold most of the voting power. How might they wield it?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Intifar Chowdhury, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University

The centre of gravity of Australian politics has shifted. Millennials and Gen Z voters, now comprising 47% of the electorate, have taken over as the dominant voting bloc.

But this generational shift isn’t just about numerical dominance. It’s also about political unpredictability.

While the youth have progressive leanings, they aren’t neatly aligned with Labor. The Greens are gaining ground and there are signs of a subset of younger men drifting right.

This makes them both a decisive and volatile force. So how might they vote?

The climbing Greens vote

According to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), youth enrolment (18–24-year-olds) at the end of March 2025 stood at 90.4%. This surpasses the national youth enrolment rate target of 87%.

Further analysis of enrolment data shows electorates with the highest proportion of voters under 30 saw unprecedented support for the Greens in 2022, with the party topping the vote share in four of the youngest seats.

Elsewhere, electorates with a high youth vote became battlegrounds, with Labor facing its fiercest competition not from the Liberals, but from the Greens.

Take Canberra, for example. A historically safe Labor seat was a comfortable Labor retain, but Greens’ primary vote reached nearly 25%, pushing the Liberals out of the two party-preferred calculations entirely.

This year, the main contest for the youth vote will likely be between Labor and the Greens.

Capturing young hearts and minds

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese knows how important these voters are. In a bid to retain the youth vote, he is already sweetening the deal for them, dangling higher education reforms like election cookies.

If re-elected, Labor promises a 20% cut to student loan debt by June 1. The government also plans a higher income threshold before repayments begin, and an expansion of fee-free TAFE places to 100,000 per year from 2027.

These proposals have received strong support from young people – even among Coalition voters.

Read more:
Every generation thinks they had it the toughest, but for Gen Z, they’re probably right

This underscores the significance of youth issues in shaping their political behaviour. Young Australians are issue-based voters, with housing affordability, employment, and climate change topping their concerns, according to the 2024 Australian Youth Barometer.

They’re acutely aware of intergenerational inequality. They’re paying more tax than their parents did, while facing skyrocketing housing, education, and living costs. Financial anxiety runs deep, with 62% believing they’ll be worse off than their parents.

Yet, they see lack of sincere government action to address their struggles.

Not doing enough

Take housing affordability – a red-hot issue in the past three years. A bitter parliamentary standoff last year saw Labor and the Greens locked in negotiations over housing policy.

The Greens criticised the government’s Build to Rent and Help to Buy schemes, calling for tougher reforms. They wanted rent caps, the winding back negative gearing and phasing out $176 billion in tax breaks for property investors.

Such parliamentary gridlocks are unsavoury to voters, but the rent cap debate could have given the Greens an edge among young people, most of whom are renters.

Youth trust in the Albanese government has slipped since 2022, according to the first wave of the ANU 2025 Election Monitoring Survey. Perceptions of politicking over important issues like housing could be part of the reason why.

Divided by gender

Another fault line in the youth vote is the gender divide.

There are signs of a right-wing shift among young men, much like in Donald Trump’s America. According to The Australian Financial Review/Freshwater Strategy poll in November 2024, 37% of men aged 18–34 back opposition leader Dutton, compared to just 27% of women.

Pollsters point to young, non-university educated voters in the outer suburbs and regions as potential disruptors. They’re volatile, disillusioned and more likely to vote against a system they feel has failed them.

This trend is harder to spot in aggregate data, likely due to compulsory voting, but studies suggest a subset of men with economic grievances – particularly blue-collar workers – are drawn to anti-government rhetoric and the discourse of white male victimhood.

Many express nostalgia for traditional masculinity and feel alienated by progressive social shifts. Such a perception leads to a “backlash” against these changes.

This resentment plays out well online. Trump, for example, has mobilised young men by mastering direct communication through digital media and podcasts, and Dutton seems to be taking notes.

So a lot hinges on the online battleground. It’s about reaching all types of young voters with relatable, political messaging.

The days of one-size-fits-all political advertising are over. Younger voters consume media differently, making political messaging more about influencers than traditional advertising.

Major parties need to step up their game in digital-first platforms, moving beyond mere presence on social media to crafting compelling, digital-first content.

Grassroots and community-driven campaigning, both online and on the ground, can bridge the disconnect. The Greens’ success in Brisbane proved this, with young, personable candidates engaging directly.

Meanwhile, the establishment parties are lacking young, relatable leaders who can tell stories that resonate.

Intifar Chowdhury 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. This election, Gen Z and Millennials hold most of the voting power. How might they wield it? – https://theconversation.com/this-election-gen-z-and-millennials-hold-most-of-the-voting-power-how-might-they-wield-it-252803

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: The ‘responsible gambling’ mantra does nothing to prevent harm. It probably makes things worse
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Haelen Haagen/Shutterstock

Recent royal commissions and inquiries into Crown and Star casino groups attracted much media attention. Most of this was focused on money laundering and other illegalities.

The Victorian royal commission found widespread evidence that Crown also took advantage of vulnerable people.

The regulatory framework that in large part allows this to occur is known as “responsible gambling”.

Read more:
Whatever happens to Star, the age of unfettered gambling revenue for casinos may have ended

What is ‘responsible gambling’?

Gambling operators usually adhere to a system of purported harm minimisation known as responsible gambling.

In practice, this requires gambling operators to adopt and supposedly implement a “responsible gambling code of practice”.

This is supposed to protect people from experiencing gambling harm. Crown and Star, like other gambling venues, are required to adopt such codes.

Royal Commissioner Ray Finkelstein, overseeing the Victorian Crown inquiry, was scathing in his assessment of Crown’s implementation:

Crown Melbourne had for years held itself out as having a world’s best approach to problem gambling. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Unfortunately, Finkelstein’ comments about Crown could readily be made about most other gambling operators.

How it all began

The responsible gambling framework was developed by gambling operators as a way of deflecting attention from the serious harm of gambling.

The document that arguably consolidated this was prepared in 2004 by a group of gambling researchers gathered, naturally, in Reno, Nevada (close to Las Vegas, the spiritual home of gambling excesses).

This document argued the choice to gamble should be left to people and no external organisation should interfere with this.

Now, responsible gambling is cemented in law, regulation, and practice. It is the overwhelming frame for gambling operators, governments and regulators to conceal gambling’s downside.

Stacking the odds

Responsible gambling depicts gambling harm as an issue for a small minority of people: so-called problem gamblers.

So from this perspective, any issues with gambling are issues with people.

But little if any attention is devoted to the environment in which gambling is available. Often, even less is devoted to examining the nature of gambling products.

When it comes to wagering marketing, the Australian gambling ecosystem has argued very effectively to forestall prohibition or further regulation in recent years.

The far-reaching power of this conglomeration of self-interested actors is hard to overestimate.

Read more:
Will the government’s online gambling advertising legislation ever eventuate? Don’t bet on it

At venue level, responsible gambling interventions required include signage, referral to counselling and mottos such as “gamble responsibly”.

With few exceptions, little of this is evidence based. Almost none of it is effective.

Codes of conduct, for example, argue it is possible to intervene at a venue when a gambler shows signs of distress, or has a gambling disorder. While this is theoretically possible, the problem is to do so would rob venue operators of their most lucrative customers.

The available evidence indicates such interventions are extremely rare, or nonexistent.

Another major element is self-exclusion: an opportunity for people (or in some states their relatives) to ban themselves from gambling at particular venues.

This is, again, fine in theory. But it has generally been poorly enforced at “bricks and mortar” venues.

There are two fundamental issues with this approach:
- those who self-exclude are very much in the minority of those with gambling problems
- self-exclusion is generally undertaken only by those who are at rock-bottom. It is not a preventive approach.
The other major intervention in the responsible gambling coda is treatment.

Gambling treatment services are available and free via Gamblers Help but fewer than 10% of those who might benefit from treatment actually seek it.

Unfortunately, attrition rates for counselling are high, so both the lack of help-seeking and the attrition rates when help is sought are at least partially attributable to another side effect of the responsible gambling mantra: shame and stigma, which are commonly reported by those struggling with gambling disorders.

The blame game

Responsible gambling effectively blames people for getting into trouble.

It argues problem gamblers are far outnumbered by “responsible gamblers”, and deflects attention away from the highly addictive nature of many gambling products.

It largely absolves operators of responsibility, while maintaining their revenues and stigmatising those who bear the consequences.

As it does all this, it also provides a smokescreen of concern, a suggestion that gambling operators and governments care about gambling harm.

Ideas for the future

The best way to curb gambling harm is to view it as a public health problem.

Public health is generally focused on prevention (think vaccines and clean water). At this stage, the most likely effective preventive intervention is what is known as pre-commitment, which uses technology to allow people to determine the amount of money they want to gamble.

High-intensity gambling products rely on people becoming highly immersed in the product. Gamblers call this “the zone” – which limits or negates a person’s ability to make rational decisions.

But pre-commitment systems allow this choice to be made outside of “the zone”.

Unsurprisingly, few gambling operators support such a solution, even though these systems are now commonplace in many European countries.

Pre-commitment and cashless systems are now required for casinos in NSW and Victoria, and shortly in Queensland, as recommended by the Crown and Star inquiries.

These are welcome steps but much more is needed.

A long overdue change

Responsible gambling has allowed gambling operators to self-regulate and blame people for harmful gambling practices.

It has made gambling businesses – casinos, wagering companies, pokie pubs and clubs – extraordinary profitable. But this has come at considerable cost to hundreds of thousands of Australians, and their families and friends.

Ditching the responsible gambling mantra is long overdue. Along with effective interventions to prevent harm, doing so will dramatically reduce the damage that gambling does.

Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Finnish Alcohol Research Foundation, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, the Turkish Red Crescent Society, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He was a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government’s Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Lancet Public Health Commission into gambling, and of the World Health Organisation expert group on gambling and gambling harm. He made a submission to and appeared before the HoR Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.

– ref. The ‘responsible gambling’ mantra does nothing to prevent harm. It probably makes things worse – https://theconversation.com/the-responsible-gambling-mantra-does-nothing-to-prevent-harm-it-probably-makes-things-worse-251487
MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –
April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: Share your stories about Quarry Hill’s history, character and heritage

Source: New South Wales Ministerial News

The City is inviting community members to share stories, photos and documents about Quarry Hill’s rich history and character.

With community involvement, it will provide a broad historical overview of Quarry Hill known as a ‘thematic history’.

The study will look at how Quarry Hill has changed since post-European contact in the region.

The thematic history’s purpose is to identify and explain the main factors, processes, places and events that have shaped Quarry Hill.

Manager Strategic Planning Anthony Petherbridge said the community can play an important role in the project.

“This is stage 1 of the project, and the aim is to better understand Quarry Hill’s rich history, character and heritage,” Mr Petherbridge said.

“Stories, photographs and documents will be invaluable to provide local knowledge and a broader historical perspective of Quarry Hill.

“The City is also interested in exploring potential places of heritage significance within the area and information that can be shared to help fill in historical gaps or details.

“By doing so, the public engagement will help guide the development of a future heritage study for Quarry Hill to protect and celebrate significant places for future generations.

“A community session will be held on Tuesday May 6, 2025, from 3pm to 7.00pm at the Quarry Hill Golf Club, 47-85 Houston St, Quarry Hill.

“This is an opportunity to share your knowledge and talk to City staff involved in the project. Tell us your Quarry Hill stories from the past and bring along documents or photos that can contribute to this exciting project.

“You are encouraged to book a time slot at the community session via the City’s Let’s Talk Greater Bendigo online engagement platform.

“On Let’s Talk Greater Bendigo, you can also learn more about the project, upload documents and photos if you are unable to attend the community session.

“A map is also available for you to pinpoint places that you think are important in Quarry Hill’s history.”

If you wish to speak to someone about the project, ask to speak to Strategic Planning via email or phone:

[email protected]

1300 002 642

MIL OSI News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: 80 years of CFA fire stations

Source:

From tin sheds, red brick buildings to weatherboard structures and ex-army Nissen huts, the home base for CFA brigades across Victoria has evolved significantly over the last 80 years.

From tin sheds, red brick buildings to weatherboard structures and ex-army Nissen huts, the home base for CFA brigades across Victoria has evolved significantly over the last 80 years.

Our volunteers work hard to protect the growing Victorian community, so it is important they have adequate facilities to support their fire response. 

When CFA made its impact throughout Victoria in the early 1950s, and postwar shortages had ended, large numbers of tin shed fire stations began to appear across rural Victoria. Now, to cater for growing communities and response efforts, state-of-the-art features are being rolled out statewide in our fire stations.

CFA General Manager Infrastructure Services Paul Santamaria said CFA first made the decision to borrow funds from the government in 1951 to put toward the construction of new fire stations.

“While farm sheds were the garages for rural fire brigades pre the 1950’s, some primitive stations were also made of fibro cement,” Paul said.

“From 1953, CFA embarked on building galvanised iron sheds for rural brigades, renovating and extending urban fire stations and building several new ones.

“We borrowed £50,000 to build 40 sheds for rural fire trucks and urgently needed urban fire stations. Brigades often erected the two bay or single bay prefabricated iron buildings themselves.”

The tin sheds have become landmarks throughout Victoria, appearing in clearings without a house in sight, and were deemed a public sign of a community prepared to defend itself.

“Back then, brigade members lent horses, ploughs and scoops to level the ground of the new sites, and working bees took place to build the stations. Local fundraisers were held to pay for sirens and connect electricity,” Paul said.

“All CFA stations conformed to the building standards at the time that they were constructed to ensure alignment with building codes and to provide adequate housing for appliances that were developed for various risk environments.

“Over time, these station design standards have changed and have been amended to include additional functional requirements to support remote rural, rural, semi urban, and fully urbanised areas.”

Over the 2000s, a new generation of modern sheds and stations with additional facilities replaced older stations around the state, with greater consideration for sustainability and of diverse communities and membership.

Today, our latest, fit-for-purpose facilities can include drive-through motor bay rooms and ancillary sheds for equipment, separate toilet facilities and turnout areas that ensure privacy for our members.

“It is really pleasing to see the improvements our fire stations have seen over the years. Whether brigades are receiving renovations or a brand-new station, all enhancements will go a long way in accommodating the future needs of the brigade,” Paul said.

“Some stations now have adequate room for kitchens, multi-purpose rooms, privacy areas, gender diverse amenities, administration areas, workshops, breathing apparatus maintenance spaces, ICT equipment, laundry facilities, storerooms and hose drying towers.

“The larger, and improved facilities will be of great benefit to our Victorian towns as a whole, with members efficiently able to continue responding to incidents in the local area and surrounding neighbourhoods.”

Submitted by CFA Media

MIL OSI News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: Man from Roger River charged with multiple offences

Source: New South Wales Community and Justice

Man from Roger River charged with multiple offences

Wednesday, 23 April 2025 – 10:40 am.

A 26-year-old man from Roger River has been charged in relation to multiple offences allegedly committed in the North and North West in the last two weeks.
The man was charged with:

Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime x2
Breach of bail x11
Evade Police (Aggravated Circumstances) x2
Drive whilst disqualified (Road Safety (Alcohol & Drugs) Act 1970) x6
Reckless driving x2
Exceed Speed Limit – (Speed Limit Sign) x3
Use unregistered motor vehicle x1
Using a motor vehicle with no premium cover x1
Dishonestly alter or display a plate in a way calculated to deceive x2
Possession of stolen firearms x1
Possess firearm in contravention of firearms prohibition order x2
Possess ammunition when not the holder of the appropriate firearm licence x2
Fail to take all precautions to ensure the safekeeping of firearm and ammunition x2
Possess a firearm when not the holder of a firearm licence of the appropriate category x2
Possess controlled drug x4

He was detained to appear before the Launceston Magistrates Court.

MIL OSI News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: Scientists claim to have found evidence of alien life. But ‘biosignatures’ might hide more than they reveal

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Campbell Rider, PhD Candidate in Philosophy – Philosophy of Biology, University of Sydney

Artist’s impression of the exoplanet K2-18b A. Smith/N. Madhusudhan (University of Cambridge)

Whether or not we’re alone in the universe is one of the biggest questions in science.

A recent study, led by astrophysicist Nikku Madhusudhan at the University of Cambridge, suggests the answer might be no. Based on observations from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, the study points to alien life on K2-18b, a distant exoplanet 124 light years from Earth.

The researchers found strong evidence of a chemical called dimethyl sulfide (DMS) in the planet’s atmosphere. On Earth, DMS is produced only by living organisms, so it appears to be a compelling sign of life, or “biosignature”.

While the new findings have made headlines, a look at the history of astrobiology shows similar discoveries have been inconclusive in the past. The issue is partly theoretical: scientists and philosophers still have no agreed-upon definition of exactly what life is.

A closer look

Unlike the older Hubble telescope, which orbited Earth, NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope is placed in orbit around the Sun. This gives it a better view of objects in deep space.

When distant exoplanets pass in front of their host star, astronomers can deduce what chemicals are in their atmospheres from the tell-tale wavelengths they leave in the detected light. Since the precision of these readings can vary, scientists estimate a margin of error for their results, to rule out random chance. The recent study of K2-18b found only a 0.3% probability that the readings were a fluke, leaving researchers confident in their detection of DMS.

On Earth, DMS is only produced by life, mostly aquatic phytoplankton. This makes it a persuasive biosignature.

The findings line up with what scientists already conjecture about K2-18b. Considered a “Hycean” world (a portmanteau of “hydrogen” and “ocean”), K2-18b is thought to feature a hydrogen-rich atmosphere and a surface covered with liquid water. These conditions are favourable to life.

So does this mean K2-18b’s oceans are crawling with extraterrestrial microbes?

Some experts are less certain. Speaking to the New York Times, planetary scientist Christopher Glein expressed doubt that the study represents a “smoking gun”. And past experiences teach us that in astrobiology, inconclusive findings are the norm.

Life as we don’t know it

Astrobiology has its origins in efforts to explain how life began on our own planet.

In the early 1950s, the Miller-Urey experiment showed that an electrical current could produce organic compounds from a best-guess reconstruction of the chemistry in Earth’s earliest oceans – sometimes called the “primordial soup”.

Although it gave no real indication of how life in fact first evolved, the experiment left astrobiology with a framework for investigating the chemistry of alien worlds.

In 1975, the first Mars landers – Viking 1 and 2 – conducted experiments with collected samples of Martian soil. In one experiment, nutrients added to soil samples appeared to produce carbon dioxide, suggesting microbes were digesting the nutrients.

Initial excitement quickly dissipated, as other tests failed to pick up organic compounds in the soil. And later studies identified plausible non-biological explanations for the carbon dioxide. One explanation points to a mineral abundant on Mars called perchlorate. Interactions between perchlorate and cosmic rays may have led to chemical reactions similar to those observed by the Viking tests.

Concerns the landers’ instruments had been contaminated on Earth also introduced uncertainty.

In 1996, a NASA team announced a Martian meteorite discovered in Antarctica bore signs of past alien life. Specimen ALH84001 showed evidence of organic hydrocarbons, as well as magnetite crystals arranged in a distinctive pattern only produced biologically on Earth.

More suggestive were the small, round structures in the rock resembling fossilised bacteria. Again, closer analysis led to disappointment. Non-biological explanations were found for the magnetite grains and hydrocarbons, while the fossil bacteria were deemed too small to plausibly support life.

The most recent comparable discovery – claims of phosphine gas on Venus in 2020 – is also still controversial. Phosphine is considered a biosignature, since on Earth it’s produced by bacterial life in low-oxygen environments, particularly in the digestive tracts of animals. Some astronomers claim the detected phosphine signal is too weak, or attributable to inorganically produced sulfur compounds.

Each time biosignatures are found, biologists confront the ambiguous distinction between life and non-life, and the difficulty of extrapolating characteristics of life on Earth to alien environments.

Carol Cleland, a leading philosopher of science, has called this the problem of finding “life as we don’t know it”.

On Earth, dimethyl sulfide is only produced by life, mostly aquatic phytoplankton (pictured here in the Barents Sea).
BEST-BACKGROUNDS/Shutterstock

Moving beyond chemistry

We still know very little about how life first emerged on Earth. This makes it hard to know what to expect from the primitive lifeforms that might exist on Mars or K2-18b.

It’s uncertain whether such lifeforms would resemble Earth life at all. Alien life might manifest in surprising and unrecognisable ways: while life on Earth is carbon-based, cellular, and reliant on self-replicating molecules such as DNA, an alien lifeform might fulfil the same functions with totally unfamiliar materials and structures.

Our knowledge of the environmental conditions on K2-18b is also limited, so it’s hard to imagine the adaptations a Hycean organism might need to survive there.

Chemical biosignatures derived from life on Earth, it seems, might be a misleading guide.

Philosophers of biology argue that a general definition of life will need to go beyond chemistry. According to one view, life is defined by its organisation, not the list of chemicals making it up: living things embody a kind of self-organisation able to autonomously produce its own parts, sustain a metabolism, and maintain a boundary or membrane separating inside from outside.

Some philosophers of science claim such a definition is too imprecise. In my own research, I’ve argued that this kind of generality is a strength: it helps keep our theories flexible, and applicable to new contexts.

K2-18b may be a promising candidate for identifying extraterrestrial life. But excitement about biosignatures such as DMS disguises deeper, theoretical problems that also need to be resolved.

Novel lifeforms in distant, unfamiliar environments might not be detectable in the ways we expect. Philosophers and scientists will have to work together on non-reductive descriptions of living processes, so that when we do stumble across alien life, we don’t miss it.

Campbell Rider is the recipient of an Australian government RTP scholarship for his doctoral studies.

– ref. Scientists claim to have found evidence of alien life. But ‘biosignatures’ might hide more than they reveal – https://theconversation.com/scientists-claim-to-have-found-evidence-of-alien-life-but-biosignatures-might-hide-more-than-they-reveal-254801

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: Somalia

Source:

We’ve reviewed our advice and continue to advise do not travel to Somalia. Terrorist attacks occur frequently. The UK and US Embassies in Somalia issue frequent security alerts about potential imminent terrorist attacks.

If you’re in Somalia, leave as soon as possible. If, despite our advice you decide to stay, get professional security advice. There are no Australian officials in Somalia and our ability to provide consular assistance is severely limited.

MIL OSI News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: Five people in custody in relation to burglary at Brighton supermarket

Source: New South Wales Community and Justice

Five people in custody in relation to burglary at Brighton supermarket

Wednesday, 23 April 2025 – 10:01 am.

Five people are in custody assisting police with their enquiries into a burglary at a supermarket in Brighton early this morning.
About 2.30am, offenders forced entry into the supermarket on Brighton Road and stole a quantity of tobacco and cigarettes. Police have recovered the stolen items.
Police would like to speak to anyone who saw a silver Nissan X-Trail in the area around the time this morning.
Information can be provided to Bridgewater Police on 131 444 or anonymously through Crime Stoppers Tasmania at crimestopperstas.com.au or on 1800 333 000 – quote OR773066.

MIL OSI News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: Firearms, ammunition and drugs seized

Source: New South Wales Community and Justice

Firearms, ammunition and drugs seized

Wednesday, 23 April 2025 – 9:31 am.

Police in southern Tasmania have seized 45 firearms in just four weeks as part of an ongoing operation.
Detective Inspector Richard Penney said Operation GAT is a collaboration between the Southern Drugs and Firearms division, State Intelligence Services, Southeast Criminal Investigation Branch, Glenorchy Criminal Investigation Branch, and specialist areas.
“Over the past four weeks, officers have been targeting firearm crime and have executed 16 search warrants,” he said.
“That has resulted in the seizure of 45 firearms, eight silencers, and illicit drugs and 12 people are being proceeded against for firearm offences.”
“We will continue to target those in our community who commit firearms crime, and we ask anyone with information about these illicit activities to contact police.”
Information can be provided to police on 131 444, or Crime Stoppers Tasmania anonymously on 1800 333 000 or online at crimestopperstas.com

MIL OSI News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: What would change your mind about climate change? We asked 5,000 Australians – here’s what they told us

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelly Kirkland, Research Fellow in Psychology, The University of Queensland

LOOKSLIKEPHOTO/Shutterstock

Australia just sweltered through one of its hottest summers on record, and heat has pushed well into autumn. Once-in-a-generation floods are now striking with alarming regularity. As disasters escalate, insurers are warning some properties may soon be uninsurable. Yet, despite these escalating disasters — and a federal election looming — conversation around climate change remains deeply polarising.

But are people’s minds really made up? Or are they still open to change?

In research out today, we asked more than 5,000 Australians a simple question: what would change your mind about climate change? Their answers reveal both a warning and an opportunity.

On climate, Australians fall into six groups

Almost two thirds (64%) of Australians are concerned about the impact of climate change, according to a recent survey.

But drill deeper, and we quickly find Australians hold quite different views on climate. In fact, research in 2022 showed Australians can be sorted into six distinct groups based on how concerned and engaged they are with the issue.

At one end was the Alarmed group – highly concerned people who are convinced of the science, and already taking action (25% of Australians). At the other end was the Dismissive group (7%) – strongly sceptical people who often view climate change as exaggerated or even a hoax. In between were the Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged and Doubtful – groups who varied in belief, awareness and willingness to engage.

In our nationally representative survey, we asked every participant what might change their opinion about climate change? We then looked at how the answers differed between the six groups.

For those already convinced climate change is real and human-caused, we wanted to know what might make them doubt it. For sceptical participants, we wanted to know what might persuade them otherwise. In short, we weren’t testing who was “right” or “wrong” – we were mapping how flexible their opinions were.

Our views aren’t set in stone

People at both extremes – Alarmed and Dismissive – were the most likely to say “nothing” would change their minds. Nearly half the Dismissive respondents flat-out rejected the premise. But these two groups together make up just one in three Australians.

What about everyone in the middle ground? The rest – the Concerned (28%), Cautious (23%), Disengaged (3%) and Doubtful (14%) – showed much more openness. They matter most, because they’re the majority — and they’re still listening.

People with dismissive views of climate science are a small minority.
jon lyall/Shutterstock

What information would change minds?

What would it take for people to be convinced? We identified four major themes: evidence and information, trusted sources, action being undertaken, and nothing.

The most common response was a desire for better evidence and information. But not just any facts would do. Participants said they wanted clear, plain-English explanations rather than jargon. They wanted statistics they could trust, and science that didn’t feel politicised or agenda-driven. Some said they’d be more convinced if they saw the impacts with their own eyes.

Crucially, many in the Doubtful and Cautious groups didn’t outright reject climate change – they just didn’t feel confident enough to judge the evidence.

The trust gap

Many respondents didn’t know who to believe on climate change. Scientists and independent experts were the most commonly mentioned trusted sources – but trust in these sources wasn’t universal.

Some Australians, especially in the more sceptical segments, expressed deep distrust toward the media, governments and the scientific community. Others said they’d be more receptive if information came from unbiased or apolitical sources. For some respondents, family, friends and everyday people were seen as more credible than institutions.

In an age of widespread misinformation, this matters. If we want to build support for climate action, we need the right messengers as much as the right message.

What about action?

Many respondents said their views could shift if they saw real, meaningful action – especially from governments and big business. Some wanted proof that Australia is taking climate change seriously. Others said action would offer hope or reduce their anxiety.

Even some sceptical respondents said coordinated, global action might persuade them – though they were often cynical about Australia’s impact compared to larger emitters. Others called for a more respectful, depoliticised conversation around climate.

In other words, for many Australians, it’s not just what evidence and information is presented about climate change. It’s also how it’s said, who says it, and why it’s being said.

Of course, the responses we gathered reflect what people say would change their minds. That’s not necessarily what would actually change their minds.

What does concrete evidence of climate action look like?
Piyaset/Shutterstock

Why does this matter?

As climate change intensifies, so does misinformation — especially online, where artificial intelligence and social media accelerate its spread.

Misinformation has a corrosive effect. Spreading doubt, lies and uncertainty can erode public support for climate action.

If we don’t understand what Australians actually need to hear about climate change – and who they need to hear it from – we risk losing ground to confusion and doubt.

After years of growth from 2012 to 2019, Australian backing for climate action is fluctuating and even dropping, according to Lowy Institute polling.

Climate change may not be the headline issue in this federal election campaign. But it’s on the ballot nonetheless, embedded in debates over how to power Australia, jobs and the cost of living. If we want public support for meaningful climate action, we can’t just shout louder. We have to speak smarter.

Kelly Kirkland receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Samantha Stanley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Abby Robinson, Amy S G Lee, and Zoe Leviston 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. What would change your mind about climate change? We asked 5,000 Australians – here’s what they told us – https://theconversation.com/what-would-change-your-mind-about-climate-change-we-asked-5-000-australians-heres-what-they-told-us-254329

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: SPC Severe Thunderstorm Watch 160

Source: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Note: The expiration time in the watch graphic is amended if the watch is replaced, cancelled or extended.Note: Click for Watch Status Reports.
SEL0

URGENT – IMMEDIATE BROADCAST REQUESTED
Severe Thunderstorm Watch Number 160
NWS Storm Prediction Center Norman OK
530 PM CDT Tue Apr 22 2025

The NWS Storm Prediction Center has issued a

* Severe Thunderstorm Watch for portions of
South-Central Kansas
Western Oklahoma
Northwest Texas

* Effective this Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning from 530
PM until 100 AM CDT.

* Primary threats include…
Scattered large hail and isolated very large hail events to 2.5
inches in diameter possible
Scattered damaging wind gusts to 70 mph possible
A tornado or two possible

SUMMARY…Thunderstorm development is anticipated this evening from
south-central KS southward through western OK into northwest TX. The
environment across the region supports the potential for supercells,
with large to very large hail as the primary risk. A tornado or two
is also possible, along with some strong gusts as well.

The severe thunderstorm watch area is approximately along and 50
statute miles east and west of a line from 45 miles northwest of
Hutchinson KS to 60 miles southwest of Wichita Falls TX. For a
complete depiction of the watch see the associated watch outline
update (WOUS64 KWNS WOU0).

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS…

REMEMBER…A Severe Thunderstorm Watch means conditions are
favorable for severe thunderstorms in and close to the watch area.
Persons in these areas should be on the lookout for threatening
weather conditions and listen for later statements and possible
warnings. Severe thunderstorms can and occasionally do produce
tornadoes.

&&

OTHER WATCH INFORMATION…CONTINUE…WW 159…

AVIATION…A few severe thunderstorms with hail surface and aloft to
2.5 inches. Extreme turbulence and surface wind gusts to 60 knots. A
few cumulonimbi with maximum tops to 500. Mean storm motion vector
24035.

…Mosier

SEL0

URGENT – IMMEDIATE BROADCAST REQUESTED
Severe Thunderstorm Watch Number 160
NWS Storm Prediction Center Norman OK
530 PM CDT Tue Apr 22 2025

The NWS Storm Prediction Center has issued a

* Severe Thunderstorm Watch for portions of
South-Central Kansas
Western Oklahoma
Northwest Texas

* Effective this Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning from 530
PM until 100 AM CDT.

* Primary threats include…
Scattered large hail and isolated very large hail events to 2.5
inches in diameter possible
Scattered damaging wind gusts to 70 mph possible
A tornado or two possible

SUMMARY…Thunderstorm development is anticipated this evening from
south-central KS southward through western OK into northwest TX. The
environment across the region supports the potential for supercells,
with large to very large hail as the primary risk. A tornado or two
is also possible, along with some strong gusts as well.

The severe thunderstorm watch area is approximately along and 50
statute miles east and west of a line from 45 miles northwest of
Hutchinson KS to 60 miles southwest of Wichita Falls TX. For a
complete depiction of the watch see the associated watch outline
update (WOUS64 KWNS WOU0).

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS…

REMEMBER…A Severe Thunderstorm Watch means conditions are
favorable for severe thunderstorms in and close to the watch area.
Persons in these areas should be on the lookout for threatening
weather conditions and listen for later statements and possible
warnings. Severe thunderstorms can and occasionally do produce
tornadoes.

&&

OTHER WATCH INFORMATION…CONTINUE…WW 159…

AVIATION…A few severe thunderstorms with hail surface and aloft to
2.5 inches. Extreme turbulence and surface wind gusts to 60 knots. A
few cumulonimbi with maximum tops to 500. Mean storm motion vector
24035.

…Mosier

Note: The Aviation Watch (SAW) product is an approximation to the watch area. The actual watch is depicted by the shaded areas.
SAW0
WW 160 SEVERE TSTM KS OK TX 222230Z – 230600Z
AXIS..50 STATUTE MILES EAST AND WEST OF LINE..
45NW HUT/HUTCHINSON KS/ – 60SW SPS/WICHITA FALLS TX/
..AVIATION COORDS.. 45NM E/W /46WSW SLN – 50SW SPS/
HAIL SURFACE AND ALOFT..2.5 INCHES. WIND GUSTS..60 KNOTS.
MAX TOPS TO 500. MEAN STORM MOTION VECTOR 24035.

LAT…LON 38539753 33349837 33340010 38539938

THIS IS AN APPROXIMATION TO THE WATCH AREA. FOR A
COMPLETE DEPICTION OF THE WATCH SEE WOUS64 KWNS
FOR WOU0.

Watch 160 Status Report Message has not been issued yet.

Note: Click for Complete Product Text.Tornadoes

Probability of 2 or more tornadoes

Low (20%)

Probability of 1 or more strong (EF2-EF5) tornadoes

Low (5%)

Wind

Probability of 10 or more severe wind events

Mod (40%)

Probability of 1 or more wind events > 65 knots

Low (10%)

Hail

Probability of 10 or more severe hail events

Mod (40%)

Probability of 1 or more hailstones > 2 inches

Mod (30%)

Combined Severe Hail/Wind

Probability of 6 or more combined severe hail/wind events

High (70%)

For each watch, probabilities for particular events inside the watch (listed above in each table) are determined by the issuing forecaster. The “Low” category contains probability values ranging from less than 2% to 20% (EF2-EF5 tornadoes), less than 5% to 20% (all other probabilities), “Moderate” from 30% to 60%, and “High” from 70% to greater than 95%. High values are bolded and lighter in color to provide awareness of an increased threat for a particular event.

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: LANCASTER – Shapiro Administration, Partners to Celebrate Stream Restoration Investments to Little Conestoga Creek

Source: US State of Pennsylvania

April 23, 2025 – Lancaster, PA

ADVISORY – LANCASTER – Shapiro Administration, Partners to Celebrate Stream Restoration Investments to Little Conestoga Creek

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Lancaster Clean Water Partners will host a site visit to the Little Conestoga Creek Blue Green Connector Project, celebrating stream restoration investments made possible through an innovative partnership led by the Little Conestoga Creek Foundation and the Steinman Foundation.

The Blue Green Connector in Lancaster County is a prime example of how sustained investments, including Growing Greener funds, are restoring water habitats and recreation across Pennsylvania’s share of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Media are invited to attend and should RSVP to DEP Southcentral Regional Communications Manager John Repetz.

WHO:
Department of Environmental Protection Acting Secretary Jessica Shirley

WHEN:
Wednesday, April 23, 2025, 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM

WHERE:
Caretaker’s Home at Conestoga House, 1604 Marietta Avenue, Lancaster, PA

WHAT:
The event will begin with remarks by project partners and Acting Secretary Shirley, followed by photo opportunities and a short walk to tour the stream restoration site.

For more information, visit the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s website, or follow DEP on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, or LinkedIn.

MEDIA CONTACT: John Repetz, jrepetz@pa.gov, 717-705-4904

MIL OSI USA News –

April 23, 2025

Submitted by	CFA Media

MIL-OSI: First Busey Corporation Announces 2025 First Quarter Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

LEAWOOD, Kan., April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — First Busey Corporation (Nasdaq: BUSE) reports first quarter results.

Busey completed the transformative acquisition of CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. on March 1, 2025, significantly impacting first quarter results and resetting the baseline for financial performance for future quarters in a multitude of positive ways.

Net Income (Loss)	Diluted EPS	Net Interest Margin¹	ROAA¹	ROATCE¹
$(30.0) million	$(0.44)	3.16%	(0.82)%	(7.99)%
$39.9 million (adj)²	$0.57 (adj)²	3.08% (adj)²	1.09% (adj)²	10.64% (adj)²

MESSAGE FROM OUR CHAIRMAN & CEO

The transformative partnership between Busey and CrossFirst takes our organization to new heights, combining our growing commercial bank with the power of Busey’s core deposit franchise, wealth management platform, and payment technology solutions at FirsTech, Inc. As we build upon Busey’s forward momentum, we are grateful for the opportunities to consistently earn the business of our customers, based on the contributions of our talented associates and the continued support of our loyal shareholders.

Van A. Dukeman
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

PARTNERSHIP WITH CROSSFIRST

Effective March 1, 2025, First Busey Corporation (“Busey,” “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our”), the holding company for Busey Bank, completed its previously announced acquisition (the “Merger”) of CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. (“CrossFirst”) (NASDAQ: CFB), the holding company for CrossFirst Bank, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 26, 2024, by and between Busey and CrossFirst (the “Merger Agreement”). This partnership creates a premier commercial bank in the Midwest, Southwest, and Florida, with 78 full-service locations across 10 states—Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The combined holding company will continue to operate under the First Busey Corporation name. Busey common stock will continue to trade on the Nasdaq under the “BUSE” stock ticker symbol.

Upon completion of the acquisition, each share of CrossFirst common stock converted to the right to receive 0.6675 of a share of Busey’s common stock, with the result that holders of Busey’s common stock owned approximately 63.5% of the combined company and holders of CrossFirst’s common stock owned approximately 36.5% of the combined company, on a fully-diluted basis. Further, upon completion of the acquisition, each share of CrossFirst preferred stock converted to the right to receive one share of Busey preferred stock.

CrossFirst Bank’s results of operations were included in Busey’s consolidated results of operations beginning March 1, 2025. Busey will operate CrossFirst Bank as a separate banking subsidiary until it is merged with and into Busey Bank, which is expected to occur on June 20, 2025. At the time of the bank merger, CrossFirst Bank locations will become banking centers of Busey Bank.

The acquisition was accretive to tangible book value, exceeding initial projections of a six-month earn back period.

Further details are included with Busey’s Current Report on Form 8‑K announcing completion of the acquisition, which was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 3, 2025.

FINANCIAL RESULTS

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME *(unaudited)*

	Three Months Ended
(dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Net interest income	$	103,731		$	81,578		$	75,854
Provision for credit losses		42,452			1,273			5,038
Total noninterest income		21,223			35,221			34,913
Total noninterest expense		115,171			78,167			70,769
Income (loss) before income taxes		(32,669	)		37,359			34,960
Income taxes		(2,679	)		9,254			8,735
Net income (loss)	$	(29,990	)	$	28,105		$	26,225

Basic earnings (loss) per common share	$	(0.44	)	$	0.49		$	0.47
Diluted earnings (loss) per common share	$	(0.44	)	$	0.49		$	0.46
Effective income tax rate		8.20	%		24.77	%		24.99	%

Busey’s results of operations for the first quarter of 2025 was a net loss of $(30.0) million, or $(0.44) per diluted common share, compared to net income of $28.1 million, or $0.49 per diluted common share, for the fourth quarter of 2024, and $26.2 million, or $0.46 per diluted common share, for the first quarter of 2024. Annualized return on average assets and annualized return on average tangible common equity² were (0.82)% and (7.99)%, respectively, for the first quarter of 2025.

Busey views certain non-operating items, including acquisition-related expenses, restructuring charges, and one-time strategic events, as adjustments to net income reported under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). We also adjust for net securities gains and losses to align with industry and research analyst reporting. The objective of our presentation of adjusted earnings and adjusted earnings metrics is to allow investors and analysts to more clearly identify quarterly trends in core earnings performance. Non-operating pre-tax adjustments for acquisition and restructuring expenses² in the first quarter of 2025 were $26.0 million. Further, $3.1 million other noninterest expense was recorded to establish an initial allowance for Unfunded Commitments² and $42.4 million provision expense was recorded to establish an initial Allowance for Credit Losses for loans purchased without credit deterioration (“non-PCD” loans) immediately following the close of the acquisition in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 326-20-30-15. Additionally, net securities losses were $15.8 million, primarily related to the execution of a strategic balance sheet repositioning. Lastly, $4.6 million in one-time deferred tax valuation expense² was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition, which is expected to lower our effective blended state tax rate in future periods but created a negative adjustment to the carrying value of our deferred tax asset in the current period. For more information and a reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures (which are identified with the endnote labeled as 2) in tabular form, see “Non-GAAP Financial Information.”

Adjusted net income², which excludes the impact of non-GAAP adjustments, was $39.9 million, or $0.57 per diluted common share, for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $30.9 million, or $0.53 per diluted common share, for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $25.7 million or $0.46 per diluted common share for the first quarter of 2024. Annualized adjusted return on average assets² and annualized adjusted return on average tangible common equity² were 1.09% and 10.64%, respectively, for the first quarter of 2025.

Pre-Provision Net Revenue²

Pre-provision net revenue² was $25.6 million for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $38.8 million for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $46.4 million for the first quarter of 2024. Pre-provision net revenue to average assets² was 0.70% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 1.28% for the fourth quarter of 2024, and 1.55% for the first quarter of 2024.

Adjusted pre-provision net revenue² was $54.7 million for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $42.0 million for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $38.6 million for the first quarter of 2024. Adjusted pre-provision net revenue to average assets² was 1.50% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 1.38% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 1.29% for the first quarter of 2024.

Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin²

Net interest income was $103.7 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $81.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 and $75.9 million in the first quarter of 2024.

Net interest margin² was 3.16% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 2.95% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2.79% for the first quarter of 2024. Excluding purchase accounting accretion, adjusted net interest margin² was 3.08% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 2.92% in the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2.78% in the first quarter of 2024.

Components of the 21 basis point increase in net interest margin² during the first quarter of 2025, which includes approximately +12 basis points contributed by CrossFirst Bank, are as follows:

Increased loan portfolio and held for sale loan yields contributed +36 basis points
Increased purchase accounting accretion contributed +5 basis points
Decreased borrowing expense contributed +3 basis points
Decreased expense on rate swaps contributed +2 basis points
Increased non-maturity deposit funding costs contributed -17 basis points
Decreased cash and securities portfolio yield contributed -8 basis points

Based on our most recent Asset Liability Management Committee (“ALCO”) model, a +100 basis point parallel rate shock is expected to increase net interest income by 1.8% over the subsequent twelve-month period. Busey continues to evaluate and execute off-balance sheet hedging and balance sheet repositioning strategies as well as embedding rate protection in our asset originations to provide stabilization to net interest income in lower rate environments. Time deposit and savings specials have provided funding flows, and we had excess earning cash during the first quarter of 2025. A portion of the acquired CrossFirst Bank securities portfolio was liquidated when the acquisition was finalized, providing additional excess cash that will allow us to unwind non-core funding. As brokered CDs mature, Busey will continue to deploy excess cash to reduce wholesale funding levels during subsequent quarters. Total deposit cost of funds increased from 1.75% during the fourth quarter of 2024 to 1.91% during the first quarter of 2025. Deposit betas increased with the higher mix of acquired indexed and wholesale deposits and a full quarter of the consolidated Company’s funding base is projected to increase total deposit cost of funds during the second quarter of 2025. With the expectation of Busey paying down non-core funding, the deposit beta will lessen during the year and is expected to normalize in the 45% to 50% beta range. Growth in higher yielding earning assets is expected to offset the increased cost of funds pressure and we project further net interest margin expansion during the second quarter of 2025.

Noninterest Income

	Three Months Ended
(dollars in thousands)	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
NONINTEREST INCOME
Wealth management fees	$	17,364		$	16,786		$	15,549
Fees for customer services		8,128			7,911			7,056
Payment technology solutions		5,073			5,094			5,709
Mortgage revenue		329			496			746
Income on bank owned life insurance		1,446			1,080			1,419
Realized net gains (losses) on the sale of mortgage servicing rights		—			—			7,465
Net securities gains (losses)		(15,768	)		(196	)		(6,375	)
Other noninterest income		4,651			4,050			3,344
Total noninterest income	$	21,223		$	35,221		$	34,913

Total noninterest income decreased by 39.7% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and decreased by 39.2% compared to the first quarter of 2024, primarily due to net securities losses that were recorded in connection with a strategic balance sheet repositioning.

Excluding the impact of net securities gains and losses and the gains on the sale of mortgage servicing rights, adjusted noninterest income² increased by 4.4% to $37.0 million, or 26.3% of operating revenue², during the first quarter of 2025, compared to $35.4 million, or 30.3% of operating revenue², for the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, adjusted noninterest income² increased by 9.4% from $33.8 million, or 30.8% of operating revenue².

Our fee-based businesses continue to add revenue diversification. Wealth management fees, wealth management referral fees included in other noninterest income, and payment technology solutions contributed 61.1% of adjusted noninterest income² for the first quarter of 2025.

Noteworthy components of noninterest income are as follows:

Wealth management fees increased by 3.4% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared to the first quarter of 2024 wealth management fees increased by 11.7%. Busey’s Wealth Management division ended the first quarter of 2025 with $13.68 billion in assets under care, compared to $13.83 billion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024 and $12.76 billion at the end of the first quarter of 2024. Our portfolio management team continues to focus on long-term returns and managing risk in the face of volatile markets and has outperformed its blended benchmark³ over the last three and five years. The Wealth Management segment reported another quarter of record high revenue for the first quarter of 2025.
Payment technology solutions revenue decreased slightly compared the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, payment technology solutions revenue decreased by 11.1% primarily due to decreases in income from electronic, online, and interactive voice response payments, partially offset by increases in lockbox and merchant services income.
Fees for customer services increased by 2.7% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 primarily due to increases in income from analysis charges and interchange fees, offset by lower non-sufficient funds charges. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, fees for customer services increased by 15.2% primarily due to increases in analysis charges, automated teller machine fees, and interchange fees, offset by lower non-sufficient funds charges. Increases in fees for customer services are primarily attributable to the inclusion of one month of CrossFirst’s income in our first quarter results.
Other noninterest income increased by 14.8% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and by 39.1% compared to the first quarter of 2024. The increase for both periods was driven by increases in swap origination fee income, commercial loan sales gains, letter of credit fee income, and other real estate owned income, offset by decreases in venture capital income.

Operating Efficiency

	Three Months Ended
(dollars in thousands)	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024
NONINTEREST EXPENSE
Salaries, wages, and employee benefits	$	67,563	$	45,458	$	42,090
Data processing expense		9,575		6,564		6,550
Net occupancy expense of premises		5,799		4,794		4,720
Furniture and equipment expense		1,744		1,650		1,813
Professional fees		9,511		4,938		2,253
Amortization of intangible assets		3,083		2,471		2,409
Interchange expense		1,343		1,305		1,611
FDIC insurance		2,167		1,330		1,400
Other noninterest expense		14,386		9,657		7,923
Total noninterest expense	$	115,171	$	78,167	$	70,769

Total noninterest expense increased by 47.3% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and increased by 62.7% compared to the first quarter of 2024. Growth in noninterest expense was primarily attributable to one-time acquisition expenses related to the CrossFirst acquisition as well as added costs for operating expenses for two banks during one month of the quarter. Annual pre-tax expense synergy estimates resulting from the CrossFirst acquisition remain on track at $25.0 million. Busey anticipates a 50% rate of synergy realization in 2025 and 100% in 2026.

Adjusted noninterest expense², which excludes acquisition and restructuring expenses, amortization of intangible assets, and the provision for unfunded commitments, was $82.9 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $72.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 and $68.6 million in the first quarter of 2024. As our business grows, Busey remains focused on prudently managing our expense base and operating efficiency.

Noteworthy components of noninterest expense are as follows:

Salaries, wages, and employee benefits expenses increased by $22.1 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and by $25.5 million compared to the first quarter of 2024, of which $15.6 million and $15.8 million, respectively, was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses, with additional severance, retention, and stock-based compensation. Busey has added 501 full time equivalent associates (“FTEs”) over the past year, mostly as a result of acquisitions, including 437 CrossFirst Bank FTEs added in March 2025 and 46 Merchants & Manufacturers Bank FTEs added in April 2024.
Data processing expense increased by $3.0 million compared to both the fourth quarter of 2024 and the first quarter of 2024, of which $2.3 million and $2.2 million, respectively, was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses. Busey has continued to make investments in technology enhancements and has also experienced inflation-driven price increases.
Professional fees increased by $4.6 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, of which $4.3 million was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses. Compared to the first quarter of 2024, professional fees increased by $7.3 million, of which $7.2 million was attributable to increases in non-operating expenses.
Amortization of intangible assets increased by $0.6 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and by $0.7 million compared to the first quarter of 2024. The CrossFirst acquisition added an estimated $81.8 million of finite-lived intangible assets, which will be amortized using an accelerated amortization methodology.
Other noninterest expense increased by $4.7 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and increased by $6.5 million compared to the first quarter of 2024, of which $0.3 million and $0.5 million, respectively, resulted from increases in non-operating expenses related to acquisition and restructuring expenses. Further, $3.1 million of non-operating expenses was recorded for the Day 2 provision for unfunded commitments. Multiple expense items contributed to the remaining fluctuations in this expense category, including marketing, business development, regulatory expenses, mortgage servicing rights valuation expenses, and other real estate owned.

Busey’s efficiency ratio² was 79.3% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 64.5% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 58.1% for the first quarter of 2024. Our adjusted efficiency² ratio was 58.7% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 61.8% for the fourth quarter of 2024, and 62.3% for the first quarter of 2024.

Busey’s annualized ratio of adjusted noninterest expense to average assets was 2.27% for the first quarter of 2025, compared to 2.39% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2.30% for the first quarter of 2024.

BALANCE SHEET STRENGTH

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS *(unaudited)*

	As of
*(dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)*	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	$	1,200,292		$	697,659		$	591,071
Debt securities available for sale		2,273,874			1,810,221			1,898,072
Debt securities held to maturity		815,402			826,630			862,218
Equity securities		10,828			15,862			9,790
Loans held for sale		7,270			3,657			6,827
Portfolio loans		13,868,357			7,697,087			7,588,077
Allowance for credit losses		(195,210	)		(83,404	)		(91,562	)
Restricted bank stock		53,518			49,930			6,000
Premises and equipment, net		182,003			118,820			121,506
Right of use assets		40,594			10,608			10,590
Goodwill and other intangible assets, net		496,118			365,975			351,455
Other assets		711,206			533,677			533,414
Total assets	$	19,464,252		$	12,046,722		$	11,887,458

LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Liabilities
Total deposits	$	16,459,470		$	9,982,490		$	9,960,191
Securities sold under agreements to repurchase		137,340			155,610			147,175
Short-term borrowings		11,209			—			—
Long-term debt		306,509			227,723			223,100
Junior subordinated debt owed to unconsolidated trusts		77,117			74,815			72,040
Lease liabilities		41,111			11,040			10,896
Other liabilities		251,890			211,775			191,405
Total liabilities		17,284,646			10,663,453			10,604,807

Stockholders’ equity
Retained earnings		249,484			294,054			248,412
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		(172,810	)		(207,039	)		(222,190	)
Other stockholders’ equity¹		2,102,932			1,296,254			1,256,429
Total stockholders’ equity		2,179,606			1,383,269			1,282,651
Total liabilities & stockholders’ equity	$	19,464,252		$	12,046,722		$	11,887,458

SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS
Book value per common share²	$	24.13		$	24.31		$	23.19
Tangible book value per common share²	$	18.62		$	17.88		$	16.84
Ending number of common shares outstanding		90,008,178			56,895,981			55,300,008

___________________________________________
1. Net balance of preferred stock ($0.001 par value), common stock ($0.001 par value), additional paid-in capital, and treasury stock.
2. See “Non-GAAP Financial Information” for reconciliation.

AVERAGE BALANCES *(unaudited)*

	Three Months Ended
*(dollars in thousands)*	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	$	861,021	$	776,572	$	594,193
Investment securities		2,782,435		2,597,309		2,907,144
Loans held for sale		3,443		6,306		4,833
Portfolio loans		9,838,337		7,738,772		7,599,316
Interest-earning assets		13,363,594		11,048,350		11,005,903
Total assets		14,831,298		12,085,993		12,024,208

LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Noninterest-bearing deposits		3,036,127		2,724,344		2,708,586
Interest-bearing deposits		9,142,781		7,325,662		7,330,105
Total deposits		12,178,908		10,050,006		10,038,691
Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase		144,838		135,728		178,659
Interest-bearing liabilities		9,627,841		7,763,729		7,831,655
Total liabilities		12,896,222		10,689,054		10,748,484
Stockholders’ equity – preferred		2,669		—		—
Stockholders’ equity – common		1,932,407		1,396,939		1,275,724
Tangible common equity¹		1,521,387		1,029,539		922,710

___________________________________________
1. See “Non-GAAP Financial Information” for reconciliation.

Busey’s financial strength is built on a long-term conservative operating approach. That focus will not change now or in the future.

Total assets were $19.46 billion as of March 31, 2025, compared to $12.05 billion as of December 31, 2024, and $11.89 billion as of March 31, 2024. Average interest-earning assets were $13.36 billion for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $11.05 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024, and $11.01 billion for the first quarter of 2024.

Portfolio Loans

We remain steadfast in our conservative approach to underwriting and our disciplined approach to pricing, particularly given our outlook for the economy in the coming quarters. Portfolio loans totaled $13.87 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $7.70 billion at December 31, 2024, and $7.59 billion at March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s portfolio loans grew by $133.6 million during the first quarter of 2025, with growth centered in the commercial category. In addition, as of March 31, 2024, CrossFirst Bank added $6.04 billion in loans to Busey’s loan portfolio.

Average portfolio loans were $9.84 billion for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $7.74 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $7.60 billion for the first quarter of 2024.

Asset Quality

Asset quality continues to be strong. Busey Bank maintains a well-diversified loan portfolio and, as a matter of policy and practice, limits concentration exposure in any particular loan segment. CrossFirst Bank’s policies are similar in nature to Busey Bank’s policies and Busey is in the process of migrating the legacy CrossFirst portfolio toward Busey Bank’s policies.

ASSET QUALITY *(unaudited)*

	As of
(dollars in thousands)	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Total assets	$	19,464,252		$	12,046,722		$	11,887,458
Portfolio loans		13,868,357			7,697,087			7,588,077
Loans 30 – 89 days past due		18,554			8,124			7,441
Non-performing loans:
Non-accrual loans		48,647			22,088			17,465
Loans 90+ days past due and still accruing		6,077			1,149			88
Non-performing loans		54,724			23,237			17,553
Other non-performing assets		4,757			63			65
Non-performing assets		59,481			23,300			17,618
Substandard (excludes 90+ days past due)		131,078			62,023			87,830
Classified assets	$	190,559		$	85,323		$	105,448

Allowance for credit losses	$	195,210		$	83,404		$	91,562

RATIOS
Non-performing loans to portfolio loans		0.39	%		0.30	%		0.23	%
Non-performing assets to total assets		0.31	%		0.19	%		0.15	%
Non-performing assets to portfolio loans and other non-performing assets		0.43	%		0.30	%		0.23	%
Allowance for credit losses to portfolio loans		1.41	%		1.08	%		1.21	%
Coverage ratio of the allowance for credit losses to non-performing loans	3.57 x			3.59 x			5.22 x
Classified assets to Bank Tier 1 capital¹and reserves		8.40	%		5.61	%		7.24	%

___________________________________________
1. Capital amounts for the first quarter of 2025 are not yet finalized and are subject to change.

Loans 30-89 days past due increased by $10.4 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $11.1 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s loans 30-89 days past due were $6.1 million, a decrease of $2.0 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s loans 30-89 days past due were $12.5 million as of March 31, 2025.

Non-performing loans increased by $31.5 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $37.2 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s non-performing loans were $6.8 million, a decrease of $16.4 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s non-performing loans were $47.9 million as of March 31, 2025. Continued disciplined credit management resulted in non-performing loans as a percentage of portfolio loans of 0.39% as of March 31, 2025, a 9 basis point increase from December 31, 2024, and a 16 basis point increase from March 31, 2024.

Non-performing assets increased by $36.2 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $41.9 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s non-performing assets were $7.1 million, a decrease of $16.2 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s non-performing assets were $52.4 million as of March 31, 2025. Non-performing assets represented 0.31% of total assets as of March 31, 2025, a 12 basis point increase from December 31, 2024, and a 16 basis point increase from March 31, 2024.

Classified assets increased by $105.2 million compared to December 31, 2024, and increased by $85.1 million compared to March 31, 2024. Busey Bank’s classified assets were $81.3 million, a decrease of $4.0 million compared to December 31, 2024. CrossFirst Bank’s classified assets were $109.3 million as of March 31, 2025.

The allowance for credit losses was $195.2 million as of March 31, 2025, representing 1.41% of total portfolio loans outstanding, and providing coverage of 3.57 times our non-performing loans balance. In connection with the CrossFirst acquisition, the Day 1 allowance recorded for loans that were purchased with credit deterioration (“PCD” loans) was $100.8 million. The Day 1 PCD allowance was recorded as an adjustment to the fair value of the PCD loans.

NET CHARGE-OFFS (RECOVERIES) AND PROVISION EXPENSE (RELEASE) *(unaudited)*

	Three Months Ended
(dollars in thousands)	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024
Net charge-offs (recoveries)	$	31,429	$	2,850	$	5,216
Provision expense (release)		42,452		1,273		5,038

Net charge-offs increased by $28.6 million when compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, and by $26.2 million when compared with the first quarter of 2024. Net charge-offs include $29.6 million related to PCD loans acquired from CrossFirst Bank, which were fully reserved at acquisition and did not require recording additional provision expense.

Busey’s results for the first quarter of 2025 include $42.5 million provision expense for credit losses, which includes $42.4 million that was recorded to establish an initial allowance for credit losses on non-PCD acquired loans.

Deposits

Total deposits were $16.46 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $9.98 billion at December 31, 2024, and $9.96 billion at March 31, 2024. Average deposits were $12.18 billion for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $10.05 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024 and $10.04 billion for the first quarter of 2024.

Core deposits² accounted for 89.7% of total deposits as of March 31, 2025. The quality of our core deposit franchise is a critical value driver of our institution. We estimated that 32% of our deposits were uninsured and uncollateralized⁴ as of March 31, 2025, and we have sufficient on- and off-balance sheet liquidity to manage deposit fluctuations and the liquidity needs of our customers.

We have executed various deposit campaigns to attract term funding and savings accounts at a lower rate than our marginal cost of funds. New certificate of deposit production in the first quarter of 2025 had a weighted average term of 7.8 months at a rate of 3.58%, which was 96 basis points below our average marginal wholesale equivalent-term funding cost during the quarter.

Borrowings

As of March 31, 2025, Busey Bank held $16.7 million of long-term Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) borrowings. In comparison, Busey Bank had no short-term or long-term FHLB borrowings as of December 31, 2024, or March 31, 2024. As of March 31, 2025, CrossFirst Bank held $11.2 million of short-term FHLB borrowings and $61.9 million of long-term FHLB borrowings.

In addition, associated with the CrossFirst acquisition, Busey assumed trust preferred securities with a recorded balance of $2.2 million as of March 31, 2025.

Liquidity

As of March 31, 2025, our available sources of on- and off-balance sheet liquidity⁵ totaled $8.55 billion. Furthermore, our balance sheet liquidity profile continues to be aided by the cash flows we expect from our relatively short-duration securities portfolio. Those cash flows were approximately $119.7 million in the first quarter of 2025. Cash flows from maturing securities within our portfolio are expected to be approximately $302.3 million for the remainder of 2025, with a current book yield of 2.55%, and approximately $308.1 million for 2026, with a current book yield of 2.59%.

Capital Strength

The strength of our balance sheet is also reflected in our capital foundation. Although impacted by the strategic deployment of capital for the CrossFirst acquisition, our capital ratios remain strong, and as of March 31, 2025, our regulatory capital ratios continued to provide a buffer of more than $630 million above levels required to be designated well-capitalized. Busey’s Common Equity Tier 1 ratio is estimated⁶ to be 11.99% at March 31, 2025, compared to 14.10% at December 31, 2024, and 13.45% at March 31, 2024. Our Total Capital to Risk Weighted Assets ratio is estimated⁶ to be 14.87% at March 31, 2025, compared to 18.53% at December 31, 2024, and 17.95% at March 31, 2024.

Busey’s tangible common equity² was $1.68 billion at March 31, 2025, compared to $1.02 billion at December 31, 2024, and $931.2 million at March 31, 2024. Tangible common equity² represented 8.83% of tangible assets at March 31, 2025, compared to 8.71% at December 31, 2024, and 8.07% at March 31, 2024.

Busey’s tangible book value per common share² was $18.62 at March 31, 2025, compared to $17.88 at December 31, 2024, and $16.84 at March 31, 2024, reflecting a 10.6% year-over-year increase. The ratios of tangible common equity to tangible assets² and tangible book value per common share have been impacted by the fair market valuation adjustment of Busey’s securities portfolio as a result of the current rate environment, which is reflected in the accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) component of shareholder’s equity.

Busey’s strong capital levels, coupled with its earnings, have allowed the Company to provide a steady return to its stockholders through dividends. During the first quarter of 2025, we paid a dividend of $0.25 per share on Busey’s common stock, which represents a 4.2% increase from the previous quarterly dividend of $0.24 per share. Busey has consistently paid dividends to its common stockholders since the bank holding company was organized in 1980.

During the first quarter of 2025, Busey resumed making stock repurchases under its stock repurchase plan, purchasing 220,000 shares of its common stock at a weighted average price of $21.98 per share for a total of $4.8 million. As of March 31, 2025, Busey had 1,699,275 shares remaining on its stock repurchase plan available for repurchase.

FIRST QUARTER EARNINGS INVESTOR PRESENTATION

For additional information on Busey’s financial condition and operating results, please refer to our Q1 2025 Earnings Investor Presentation furnished via Form 8‑K on April 22, 2025, in connection with this earnings release.

CORPORATE PROFILE

As of March 31, 2025, First Busey Corporation (Nasdaq: BUSE) was a $19.46 billion financial holding company headquartered in Leawood, Kansas.

Busey Bank, a wholly-owned bank subsidiary of First Busey Corporation headquartered in Champaign, Illinois, had total assets of $11.98 billion as of March 31, 2025. Busey Bank currently has 62 banking centers, with 21 in Central Illinois markets, 17 in suburban Chicago markets, 20 in the St. Louis Metropolitan Statistical Area, three in Southwest Florida, and one in Indianapolis. More information about Busey Bank can be found at busey.com.

CrossFirst Bank, a wholly-owned bank subsidiary of First Busey Corporation headquartered in Leawood, Kansas, had total assets of $7.45 billion as of March 31, 2025. CrossFirst Bank currently has 16 banking centers located across Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. More information about CrossFirst Bank can be found at crossfirstbank.com. It is anticipated that CrossFirst Bank will be merged with and into Busey Bank on June 20, 2025.

Through Busey’s Wealth Management division, the Company provides a full range of asset management, investment, brokerage, fiduciary, philanthropic advisory, tax preparation, and farm management services to individuals, businesses, and foundations. Assets under care totaled $13.68 billion as of March 31, 2025. More information about Busey’s Wealth Management services can be found at busey.com/wealth-management.

Busey Bank’s wholly-owned subsidiary, FirsTech, specializes in the evolving financial technology needs of small and medium-sized businesses, highly regulated enterprise industries, and financial institutions. FirsTech provides comprehensive and innovative payment technology solutions, including online, mobile, and voice-recognition bill payments; money and data movement; merchant services; direct debit services; lockbox remittance processing for payments made by mail; and walk-in payments at retail agents. Additionally, FirsTech simplifies client workflows through integrations enabling support with billing, reconciliation, bill reminders, and treasury services. More information about FirsTech can be found at firstechpayments.com.

For the fourth consecutive year, Busey was named among 2025’s America’s Best Banks by Forbes. Ranked 88th overall, Busey was one of seven banks headquartered in Illinois included on this year’s list. Busey was also named among the 2024 Best Banks to Work For by American Banker, the 2024 Best Places to Work in Money Management by Pensions and Investments, the 2024 Best Places to Work in Illinois by Daily Herald Business Ledger, the 2025 Best Places to Work in Indiana by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, and the 2024 Best Companies to Work For in Florida by Florida Trend magazine. We are honored to be consistently recognized globally, nationally and locally for our engaged culture of integrity and commitment to community development.

NON-GAAP FINANCIAL INFORMATION

This earnings release contains certain financial information determined by methods other than GAAP. Management uses these non-GAAP measures, together with the related GAAP measures, in analysis of Busey’s performance and in making business decisions, as well as for comparison to Busey’s peers. Busey believes the adjusted measures are useful for investors and management to understand the effects of certain non-core and non-recurring items and provide additional perspective on Busey’s performance over time.

The following tables present reconciliations between these non-GAAP measures and what management believes to be the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures.

These non-GAAP disclosures have inherent limitations and are not audited. They should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for operating results reported in accordance with GAAP, nor are they necessarily comparable to non-GAAP performance measures that may be presented by other companies. Tax effected numbers included in these non-GAAP disclosures are based on estimated statutory rates, estimated federal income tax rates, or effective tax rates, as noted with the tables below.

RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES (Unaudited)

Pre-Provision Net Revenue and Related Measures

		Three Months Ended
(dollars in thousands)		March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Net interest income (GAAP)		$	103,731		$	81,578		$	75,854
Total noninterest income (GAAP)			21,223			35,221			34,913
Net security (gains) losses (GAAP)			15,768			196			6,375
Total noninterest expense (GAAP)			(115,171	)		(78,167	)		(70,769	)
Pre-provision net revenue (Non-GAAP)	[a]		25,551			38,828			46,373
Acquisition and restructuring expenses			26,026			3,585			408
Provision for unfunded commitments¹			3,141			(455	)		(678	)
Realized (gain) loss on the sale of mortgage service rights			—			—			(7,465	)
Adjusted pre-provision net revenue (Non-GAAP)	[b]	$	54,718		$	41,958		$	38,638

Average total assets	[c]		14,831,298			12,085,993			12,024,208

Pre-provision net revenue to average total assets (Non-GAAP)²	[a÷c]		0.70	%		1.28	%		1.55	%
Adjusted pre-provision net revenue to average total assets (Non-GAAP)²	[b÷c]		1.50	%		1.38	%		1.29	%

___________________________________________

For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the provision for unfunded commitments included Day 2 provision expense of $3.139 million recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition.
Annualized measure.

Adjusted Net Income, Average Tangible Common Equity, and Related Ratios

		Three Months Ended
(dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)		March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Net income (loss) (GAAP)	[a]	$	(29,990	)	$	28,105		$	26,225
Acquisition expenses			26,026			2,469			285
Restructuring expenses			—			1,116			123
Day 2 provision for credit losses¹			42,433			—			—
Day 2 provision for unfunded commitments²			3,139			—			—
Net securities (gains) losses			15,768			196			6,375
Realized net (gains) losses on the sale of mortgage servicing rights			—			—			(7,465	)
Related tax (benefit) expense³			(22,069	)		(1,014	)		170
One-time deferred tax valuation adjustment⁴			4,591			—			—
Adjusted net income (Non-GAAP)⁵	[b]	$	39,898		$	30,872		$	25,713

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, diluted (GAAP)	[c]		68,517,647			57,934,812			56,406,500
Diluted earnings (loss) per common share (GAAP)	[a÷c]	$	(0.44	)	$	0.49		$	0.46

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, diluted (Non-GAAP)⁶	[d]		69,502,717			57,934,812			56,406,500
Adjusted diluted earnings per common share (Non-GAAP)⁵^,6	[b÷d]	$	0.57		$	0.53		$	0.46

Average total assets	[e]	$	14,831,298		$	12,085,993		$	12,024,208
Return on average assets (Non-GAAP)⁷	[a÷e]	(0.82		)%		0.93	%		0.88	%
Adjusted return on average assets (Non-GAAP)^5,⁷	[b÷e]		1.09	%		1.02	%		0.86	%

Average common equity		$	1,932,407		$	1,396,939		$	1,275,724
Average goodwill and other intangible assets, net			(411,020	)		(367,400	)		(353,014	)
Average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)	[f]	$	1,521,387		$	1,029,539		$	922,710

Return on average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)⁷	[a÷f]	(7.99		)%		10.86	%		11.43	%
Adjusted return on average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)^5,⁷	[b÷f]		10.64	%		11.93	%		11.21	%

___________________________________________

The Day 2 allowance for credit losses was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition to establish an allowance on non-PCD loans and is reflected within the provision for credit losses line on the Statement of Income.
The Day 2 provision for unfunded commitments was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition and is reflected within the other noninterest expense line, as a component of total noninterest expense, on the Statement of Income.
Tax benefits were calculated using tax rates of 25.3%, 26.8%, and 24.9% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively.
The deferred tax valuation adjustment was recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition and relates to the expansion of Busey’s footprint into new states. The deferred tax valuation adjustment is reflected within the income taxes line on the Statement of Income.
Beginning in 2025, Busey revised its calculation of adjusted net income for all periods presented to include, as applicable, adjustments for net securities gains and losses, realized net gains and losses on the sale of mortgage servicing rights, and one-time deferred tax valuation adjustments. In 2024, these adjusting items were previously presented as further adjustments to adjusted net income.
Dilution includes shares that would have been dilutive if there had been net income during the period.
Annualized measure.

Tax-Equivalent Net Interest Income, Adjusted Net Interest Income, Net Interest Margin, and Adjusted Net Interest Margin

		Three Months Ended
(dollars in thousands)		March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Net interest income (GAAP)		$	103,731		$	81,578		$	75,854
Tax-equivalent adjustment¹			537			446			449
Tax-equivalent net interest income (Non-GAAP)	[a]		104,268			82,024			76,303
Purchase accounting accretion related to business combinations			(2,728	)		(812	)		(204	)
Adjusted net interest income (Non-GAAP)	[b]	$	101,540		$	81,212		$	76,099

Average interest-earning assets (Non-GAAP)	[c]	$	13,363,594		$	11,048,350		$	11,005,903

Net interest margin (Non-GAAP)²	[a÷c]		3.16	%		2.95	%		2.79	%
Adjusted net interest margin (Non-GAAP)²	[b÷c]		3.08	%		2.92	%		2.78	%

___________________________________________

Tax-equivalent adjustments were calculated using an estimated federal income tax rate of 21%, applied to non-taxable interest income on investments and loans.
Annualized measure.

Adjusted Noninterest Income, Revenue Measures, Adjusted Noninterest Expense, Efficiency Ratios, and Adjusted Noninterest Expense to Average Assets

		Three Months Ended
(dollars in thousands)		March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Net interest income (GAAP)	[a]	$	103,731		$	81,578		$	75,854
Tax-equivalent adjustment¹			537			446			449
Tax-equivalent net interest income (Non-GAAP)	[b]		104,268			82,024			76,303

Total noninterest income (GAAP)			21,223			35,221			34,913
Net security (gains) losses			15,768			196			6,375
Noninterest income excluding net securities gains and losses (Non-GAAP)	[c]		36,991			35,417			41,288
Realized net (gains) losses on the sale of mortgage servicing rights			—			—			(7,465	)
Adjusted noninterest income (Non-GAAP)	[d]	$	36,991		$	35,417		$	33,823

Tax-equivalent revenue (Non-GAAP)	[e = b+c]	$	141,259		$	117,441		$	117,591
Adjusted tax-equivalent revenue (Non-GAAP)	[f = b+d]	$	141,259		$	117,441		$	110,126
Operating revenue (Non-GAAP)	[g = a+d]	$	140,722		$	116,995		$	109,677

Adjusted noninterest income to operating revenue (Non-GAAP)	[d÷g]		26.29	%		30.27	%		30.84	%

Total noninterest expense (GAAP)		$	115,171		$	78,167		$	70,769
Amortization of intangible assets			(3,083	)		(2,471	)		(2,409	)
Noninterest expense excluding amortization of intangible assets (Non-GAAP)	[h]		112,088			75,696			68,360
Acquisition and restructuring expenses			(26,026	)		(3,585	)		(408	)
Provision for unfunded commitments²			(3,141	)		455			678
Adjusted noninterest expense (Non-GAAP)³	[i]	$	82,921		$	72,566		$	68,630

Efficiency ratio (Non-GAAP)	[h÷e]		79.35	%		64.45	%		58.13	%
Adjusted efficiency ratio (Non-GAAP)³	[i÷f]		58.70	%		61.79	%		62.32	%

Average total assets	[j]	$	14,831,298		$	12,085,993		$	12,024,208
Adjusted noninterest expense to average assets (Non-GAAP)⁴	[i÷j]		2.27	%		2.39	%		2.30	%

___________________________________________

Tax-equivalent adjustments were calculated using an estimated federal income tax rate of 21%, applied to non-taxable interest income on investments and loans.
For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the provision for unfunded commitments included Day 2 provision expense of $3.139 million recorded in connection with the CrossFirst acquisition.
Beginning in 2025, Busey revised its calculation of adjusted noninterest expense and the adjusted efficiency ratio for all periods presented to include, as applicable, adjustments for the provision for unfunded commitments. In 2024, these adjustments were previously presented as adjustments for adjusted core expense and the adjusted core efficiency ratio.
Annualized measure.

Tangible Assets, Tangible Common Equity, and Related Measures and Ratio

		As of
(dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)		March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Total assets (GAAP)		$	19,464,252		$	12,046,722		$	11,887,458
Goodwill and other intangible assets, net			(496,118	)		(365,975	)		(351,455	)
Tangible assets (Non-GAAP)¹	[a]	$	18,968,134		$	11,680,747		$	11,536,003

Total stockholders’ equity (GAAP)		$	2,179,606		$	1,383,269		$	1,282,651
Preferred stock and additional paid in capital on preferred stock			(7,750	)		—			—
Common equity	[b]		2,171,856			1,383,269			1,282,651
Goodwill and other intangible assets, net			(496,118	)		(365,975	)		(351,455	)
Tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)¹	[c]	$	1,675,738		$	1,017,294		$	931,196

Tangible common equity to tangible assets (Non-GAAP)¹	[c÷a]		8.83	%		8.71	%		8.07	%

Ending number of common shares outstanding (GAAP)	[d]		90,008,178			56,895,981			55,300,008
Book value per common share (Non-GAAP)	[b÷d]	$	24.13		$	24.31		$	23.19
Tangible book value per common share (Non-GAAP)	[c÷d]	$	18.62		$	17.88		$	16.84

___________________________________________

Beginning in 2025, Busey revised its calculation of tangible assets and tangible common equity for all periods presented to exclude any tax adjustment.

Core Deposits and Related Ratio

		As of
(dollars in thousands)		March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Total deposits (GAAP)	[a]	$	16,459,470		$	9,982,490		$	9,960,191
Brokered deposits, excluding brokered time deposits of $250,000 or more			(722,309	)		(13,090	)		(6,001	)
Time deposits of $250,000 or more			(967,262	)		(334,503	)		(326,795	)
Core deposits (Non-GAAP)	[b]	$	14,769,899		$	9,634,897		$	9,627,395

Core deposits to total deposits (Non-GAAP)	[b÷a]		89.73	%		96.52	%		96.66	%

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This press release may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to Busey’s financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance, and business. Forward-looking statements, which may be based upon beliefs, expectations and assumptions of Busey’s management and on information currently available to management, are generally identifiable by the use of words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “position,” or other similar expressions. Additionally, all statements in this document, including forward-looking statements, speak only as of the date they are made, and Busey undertakes no obligation to update any statement in light of new information or future events.

A number of factors, many of which are beyond Busey’s ability to control or predict, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in any forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others, the following: (1) the strength of the local, state, national, and international economies and financial markets (including effects of inflationary pressures and supply chain constraints); (2) changes in, and the interpretation and prioritization of, local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and governmental policies (including those concerning Busey’s general business); (3) the economic impact of any future terrorist threats or attacks, widespread disease or pandemics, or other adverse external events that could cause economic deterioration or instability in credit markets (including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East); (4) unexpected results of acquisitions, including the acquisition of CrossFirst, which may include the failure to realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisitions and the possibility that the transaction and integration costs may be greater than anticipated; (5) the imposition of tariffs or other governmental policies impacting the value of products produced by Busey’s commercial borrowers; (6) new or revised accounting policies and practices as may be adopted by state and federal regulatory banking agencies, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; (7) changes in interest rates and prepayment rates of Busey’s assets (including the impact of sustained elevated interest rates); (8) increased competition in the financial services sector (including from non-bank competitors such as credit unions and fintech companies) and the inability to attract new customers; (9) changes in technology and the ability to develop and maintain secure and reliable electronic systems; (10) the loss of key executives or associates, talent shortages, and employee turnover; (11) unexpected outcomes and costs of existing or new litigation, investigations, or other legal proceedings, inquiries, and regulatory actions involving Busey (including with respect to Busey’s Illinois franchise taxes); (12) fluctuations in the value of securities held in Busey’s securities portfolio, including as a result of changes in interest rates; (13) credit risk and risk from concentrations (by type of borrower, geographic area, collateral, and industry), within Busey’s loan portfolio and large loans to certain borrowers (including commercial real estate loans); (14) the concentration of large deposits from certain clients who have balances above current Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits and may withdraw deposits to diversify their exposure; (15) the level of non-performing assets on Busey’s balance sheets; (16) interruptions involving information technology and communications systems or third-party servicers; (17) breaches or failures of information security controls or cybersecurity-related incidents; (18) the economic impact on Busey and its customers of climate change, natural disasters, and exceptional weather occurrences such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, blizzards, and droughts; (19) the ability to successfully manage liquidity risk, which may increase dependence on non-core funding sources such as brokered deposits, and may negatively impact Busey’s cost of funds; (20) the ability to maintain an adequate level of allowance for credit losses on loans; (21) the effectiveness of Busey’s risk management framework; and (22) the ability of Busey to manage the risks associated with the foregoing. These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements.

Additional information concerning Busey and its business, including additional factors that could materially affect Busey’s financial results, is included in Busey’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

END NOTES

1	Annualized measure.
2	Represents a non-GAAP financial measure. For a reconciliation to the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), see “Non-GAAP Financial Information.”
3	The blended benchmark consists of 60% MSCI All Country World Index and 40% Bloomberg Intermediate US Government/Credit Total Return Index.
4	Estimated uninsured and uncollateralized deposits consist of account balances in excess of the $250 thousand Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limit, less intercompany accounts, fully collateralized accounts (including preferred deposits), and pass-through accounts where clients have deposit insurance at the correspondent financial institution.
5	On- and off-balance sheet liquidity is comprised of cash and cash equivalents, debt securities excluding those pledged as collateral, brokered deposits, and Busey’s borrowing capacity through its revolving credit facility, the FHLB, the Federal Reserve Bank, and federal funds purchased lines.
6	Capital amounts and ratios for the first quarter of 2025 are not yet finalized and are subject to change.

INVESTOR CONTACT: Scott A. Phillips, Interim Chief Financial Officer | 239-689-7167

The MIL Network –

April 23, 2025

MIL-OSI: Baker Hughes Company Announces First-Quarter 2025 Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

First-quarter highlights

Orders of $6.5 billion, including $3.2 billion of IET orders.
RPO of $33.2 billion, including record IET RPO of $30.4 billion.
Revenue of $6.4 billion, consistent year-over-year.
Attributable net income of $402 million.
GAAP diluted EPS of $0.40 and adjusted diluted EPS* of $0.51.
Adjusted EBITDA* of $1,037 million, up 10% year-over-year.
Cash flows from operating activities of $709 million and free cash flow* of $454 million.
Returns to shareholders of $417 million, including $188 million of share repurchases.

HOUSTON and LONDON, April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Baker Hughes Company (Nasdaq: BKR) (“Baker Hughes” or the “Company”) announced results today for the first quarter of 2025.

“Baker Hughes started the year strong, building on the positive momentum from 2024 and setting multiple first-quarter records. Our continued transformation initiatives and strong execution continue to drive structural margin improvement across both segments. The operational transformation and streamlining efforts have created a solid foundation to optimize margins and enhance returns, even in a challenging environment,” said Lorenzo Simonelli, Baker Hughes chairman and chief executive officer.

“In our IET segment, we booked $3.2 billion of orders, including our first data center awards, totaling more than 350 MW of power solutions for this rapidly evolving market. In addition to expanding opportunities for data centers, we have a strong pipeline of LNG, FPSO and gas infrastructure projects that support our order outlook for this year.”

“In OFSE, EBITDA remained resilient as our margins saw noticeable improvement compared to last year even while segment revenue fell. This is a testament to the team’s hard work in changing the way the business operates.”

“Although our outlook is tempered by broader macro and trade policy uncertainty, we remain confident in our strategy and the resilience of our portfolio. We believe Baker Hughes is well positioned to navigate near-term challenges and deliver sustainable growth in shareholder value.”

“I want to thank our employees, whose hard work, dedication and focus have been instrumental to the continued success of Baker Hughes. As we continue to execute our strategy amidst an uncertain macro backdrop, we remain committed to our customers, shareholders and employees,” concluded Simonelli.

* Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

	Three Months Ended						Variance
(in millions except per share amounts)	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024		Sequential		Year-over- year
Orders	$	6,459	$	7,496	$	6,542	(14	%)	(1	%)
Revenue		6,427		7,364		6,418	(13	%)	—	%
Net income attributable to Baker Hughes		402		1,179		455	(66	%)	(12	%)
Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes*		509		694		429	(27	%)	19	%
Adjusted EBITDA*		1,037		1,310		943	(21	%)	10	%
Diluted earnings per share (EPS)		0.40		1.18		0.45	(66	%)	(11	%)
Adjusted diluted EPS*		0.51		0.70		0.43	(27	%)	19	%
Cash flow from operating activities		709		1,189		784	(40	%)	(10	%)
Free cash flow*		454		894		502	(49	%)	(10	%)

* Non-GAAP measure. See reconciliations in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

Certain columns and rows in our tables and financial statements may not sum up due to the use of rounded numbers.

Quarter Highlights

Baker Hughes expanded its leadership position in liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) in the first quarter, including a liquefaction train award from Bechtel for a project in North America, where the Company will provide four main refrigerant compressors driven by LM6000+ gas turbines and four expander-compressors. This award builds on the previously announced December 2024 award and further demonstrates the strength of the Company’s collaboration with Bechtel to support North America LNG development.

During the quarter, Industrial & Energy Technology (“IET”) signed key strategic framework agreements with LNG operators. The Company agreed to provide gas turbines and refrigerant compressor technology, along with maintenance services, for Trains 4 to 8 of NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG Facility. Baker Hughes also reached an agreement with Argent LNG to provide liquefaction and power solutions and related aftermarket services for its proposed 24 MTPA LNG export facility in Louisiana. The project will employ Baker Hughes’ NMBL™ modularized LNG solution, driven by the LM9000 gas turbine, while also utilizing the Company’s iCenter™ and Cordant™ digital solution, to enhance the plant’s operational efficiency.

Baker Hughes also demonstrated its continuous commitment to critical gas infrastructure projects with a strategic win in the North America pipeline compression market. The award includes the provision of two gas compression stations for a total of 10 Frame 5/2E gas turbines and 10 centrifugal compressors, anti-surge valves and critical spare parts.

In the first quarter, Baker Hughes made significant progress in reliable and sustainable power solutions deployment for data centers. In addition to being awarded over 350 MW of NovaLT™ turbines to power data centers with various other customers, the Company partnered with Frontier Infrastructure to accelerate the development of large-scale carbon capture and storage (“CCS”) and power solutions for data centers and industrial customers in the U.S. This partnership will leverage technologies and services across the Baker Hughes enterprise by providing CO₂ compression, NovaLT™ gas turbines, digital monitoring solutions, well construction and completion services.

In continued demonstration of Gas Technology’s lifecycle offerings in IET, the Company received several aftermarket service awards during the quarter. In Algeria, the Gas Technology Services (“GTS”) team is partnering with SONATRACH to deliver an upgrade solution for the modernization of a key compressor station. In the Middle East, Gas Technology received multiple equipment and services awards to support one of the world’s largest gas processing plants. The scope includes rejuvenation of two existing gas turbines to drive new compressors and the supply of a third compression train to support production expansion.

IET’s Industrial Solutions gained momentum with its Cordant™ Asset Performance Management (“APM”) solution, securing several contracts with customers across multiple regions. ADNOC Offshore will deploy the full APM suite to enhance production availability and efficiency. In the Americas, a large international oil company will conduct a proof of concept across multiple equipment trains, to support a shift from proactive to predictive maintenance. In Australia, the Company signed agreements to develop asset maintenance strategies for new mine sites supporting truck fleet maintenance.

Oilfield Services & Equipment (“OFSE”) received a significant award from ExxonMobil Guyana to provide specialty chemicals and related services for its Uaru and Whiptail offshore greenfield developments in the country’s prolific Stabroek Block, highlighting the differentiated capabilities of our Production Solutions offering. For this multi-year contract, the scope will cover topsides, subsea, water injection and utility chemicals to help ExxonMobil Guyana achieve optimal production.

OFSE continues to leverage the Company’s innovative solutions to help Petrobras unlock Brazil’s vast energy supply. In the quarter and following an open tender, Baker Hughes received a significant, multi-year fully integrated completions systems contract from Petrobras across multiple deepwater fields. A range of Baker Hughes’ technologies, including the new SureCONTROL^TM Premium interval control valve, has been specifically tailored to meet the needs of the country’s offshore developments.

OFSE secured a multi-year contract with Dubai Petroleum Establishment, for and on behalf of Dubai Supply Authority, to provide integrated coiled-tubing drilling services for the Company’s Margham Gas storage project. This follows a third-quarter 2024 IET award for integrated compressor line units for the same project, demonstrating growing commercial synergies across Baker Hughes’ diverse portfolio.

The Company drove growth in Mature Assets Solutions, signing a multi-year framework agreement with Equinor to help establish a new Center of Excellence for Plug & Abandonment work in the North Sea. Based within OFSE’s operations in Bergen and Stavanger, Norway, this hub will ensure economical, reliable solutions are implemented to responsibly abandon each well, allowing Equinor to maximize value of their assets and allocate more resources to exploration and discovery.

On the digital front, OFSE received an award from the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (“SOCAR”) to expand deployment of Leucipa™ automated field production solution for all its wells, including those with non-Baker Hughes electric submersible pumps, in the Absheron and Gunseli fields. Leucipa also marked its first deployment in Sub-Saharan Africa through an agreement with the NNPC/FIRST E&P joint venture, which will utilize the platform across its offshore wells in the Niger Delta.

Consolidated Financial Results

Revenue for the quarter was $6,427 million, a decrease of 13% sequentially and up $9 million year-over-year. The increase in revenue year-over-year was driven by an increase in IET and partially offset by a decrease in OFSE.

The Company’s total book-to-bill ratio in the first quarter of 2025 was 1.0; the IET book-to-bill ratio was 1.1.

Net income as determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), for the first quarter of 2025 was $402 million. Net income decreased $777 million sequentially and decreased $53 million year-over-year.

Adjusted net income (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the first quarter of 2025 was $509 million, which excludes adjustments totaling $108 million. A list of the adjusting items and associated reconciliation from GAAP has been provided in Table 1b in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.” Adjusted net income for the first quarter of 2025 was down 27% sequentially and up 19% year-over-year.

Depreciation and amortization for the first quarter of 2025 was $285 million.

Adjusted EBITDA (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the first quarter of 2025 was $1,037 million, which excludes adjustments totaling $140 million. See Table 1a in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.” Adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter was down 21% sequentially and up 10% year-over-year.

The sequential decrease in adjusted net income and adjusted EBITDA was primarily driven by lower volume in both segments, partially offset by productivity and structural cost-out initiatives. The year-over-year increase in adjusted net income and adjusted EBITDA was driven by increased volume in IET including higher proportionate growth in Gas Technology Equipment (“GTE”) and productivity, structural cost-out initiatives and higher pricing in both segments, partially offset by decreased volume and business mix in OFSE and cost inflation in both segments.

Other Financial Items

Remaining Performance Obligations (“RPO”) in the first quarter of 2025 ended at $33.2 billion, a decrease of $0.1 billion from the fourth quarter of 2024. OFSE RPO was $2.8 billion, down 7% sequentially, while IET RPO was $30.4 billion, up $300 million sequentially. Within IET RPO, GTE RPO was $11.9 billion and GTS RPO was $15.1 billion.

Income tax expense in the first quarter of 2025 was $152 million.

Other (income) expense, net in the first quarter of 2025 was $140 million, primarily related to changes in fair value for equity securities of $140 million.

GAAP diluted earnings per share was $0.40. Adjusted diluted earnings per share (a non-GAAP financial measure) was $0.51. Excluded from adjusted diluted earnings per share were all items listed in Table 1b in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

Cash flow from operating activities was $709 million for the first quarter of 2025. Free cash flow (a non-GAAP financial measure) for the quarter was $454 million. A reconciliation from GAAP has been provided in Table 1c in the section titled “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

Capital expenditures, net of proceeds from disposal of assets, were $255 million for the first quarter of 2025, of which $158 million was for OFSE and $83 million was for IET.

Results by Reporting Segment

The following segment discussions and variance explanations are intended to reflect management’s view of the relevant comparisons of financial results on a sequential or year-over-year basis, depending on the business dynamics of the reporting segments.

Oilfield Services & Equipment

(in millions)	Three Months Ended									Variance
Segment results	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024			Sequential		Year-over- year
Orders	$	3,281		$	3,740		$	3,624		(12	%)	(9	%)
Revenue	$	3,499		$	3,871		$	3,783		(10	%)	(8	%)
EBITDA	$	623		$	755		$	644		(18	%)	(3	%)
EBITDA margin		17.8	%		19.5	%		17.0	%	-1.7pts		0.8pts

(in millions)	Three Months Ended						Variance
Revenue by Product Line	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024		Sequential		Year-over- year
Well Construction	$	892	$	943	$	1,061	(5	%)	(16	%)
Completions, Intervention, and Measurements		925		1,022		1,006	(9	%)	(8	%)
Production Solutions		899		974		945	(8	%)	(5	%)
Subsea & Surface Pressure Systems		782		932		771	(16	%)	1	%
Total Revenue	$	3,499	$	3,871	$	3,783	(10	%)	(8	%)

(in millions)	Three Months Ended						Variance
Revenue by Geographic Region	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024		Sequential		Year-over- year
North America	$	922	$	971	$	990	(5	%)	(7	%)
Latin America		568		661		637	(14	%)	(11	%)
Europe/CIS/Sub-Saharan Africa		580		740		750	(22	%)	(23	%)
Middle East/Asia		1,429		1,499		1,405	(5	%)	2	%
Total Revenue	$	3,499	$	3,871	$	3,783	(10	%)	(8	%)

North America	$	922	$	971	$	990	(5	%)	(7	%)
International	$	2,577	$	2,900	$	2,793	(11	%)	(8	%)

EBITDA excludes depreciation and amortization of $226 million, $229 million, and $222 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively. EBITDA margin is defined as EBITDA divided by revenue.

OFSE orders of $3,281 million for the first quarter of 2025 decreased by 12% sequentially. Subsea and Surface Pressure Systems orders were $532 million, down 34% sequentially, and down 16% year-over-year.

OFSE revenue of $3,499 million for the first quarter of 2025 was down 10% sequentially, and down 8% year-over-year.

North America revenue was $922 million, down 5% sequentially. International revenue was $2,577 million, down 11% sequentially, with declines across all regions.

Segment EBITDA for the first quarter of 2025 was $623 million, a decrease of $132 million, or 18% sequentially. The sequential decrease in EBITDA was primarily driven by lower volume, partially mitigated by productivity from structural cost-out initiatives.

Industrial & Energy Technology

(in millions)	Three Months Ended									Variance
Segment results	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024			Sequential		Year-over- year
Orders	$	3,178		$	3,756		$	2,918		(15	%)	9	%
Revenue	$	2,928		$	3,492		$	2,634		(16	%)	11	%
EBITDA	$	501		$	639		$	386		(22	%)	30	%
EBITDA margin		17.1	%		18.3	%		14.7	%	-1.2pts		2.4pts

(in millions)	Three Months Ended						Variance
Orders by Product Line	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024		Sequential		Year-over- year
Gas Technology Equipment	$	1,335	$	1,865	$	1,230	(28	%)	9	%
Gas Technology Services		913		902		692	1	%	32	%
Total Gas Technology		2,248		2,767		1,922	(19	%)	17	%
Industrial Products		501		515		546	(3	%)	(8	%)
Industrial Solutions		281		320		257	(12	%)	10	%
Total Industrial Technology		782		835		803	(6	%)	(3	%)
Climate Technology Solutions		148		154		193	(4	%)	(23	%)
Total Orders	$	3,178	$	3,756	$	2,918	(15	%)	9	%

(in millions)	Three Months Ended						Variance
Revenue by Product Line	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024		March 31, 2024		Sequential		Year-over- year
Gas Technology Equipment	$	1,456	$	1,663	$	1,210	(12	%)	20	%
Gas Technology Services		592		796		614	(26	%)	(4	%)
Total Gas Technology		2,047		2,459		1,824	(17	%)	12	%
Industrial Products		445		548		462	(19	%)	(4	%)
Industrial Solutions		258		282		265	(8	%)	(2	%)
Total Industrial Technology		703		830		727	(15	%)	(3	%)
Climate Technology Solutions		178		204		83	(13	%)	114	%
Total Revenue	$	2,928	$	3,492	$	2,634	(16	%)	11	%

EBITDA excludes depreciation and amortization of $53 million, $56 million, and $56 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, respectively. EBITDA margin is defined as EBITDA divided by revenue.

IET orders of $3,178 million for the first quarter of 2025 increased by $260 million, or 9% year-over-year. The increase was driven primarily by Gas Technology, up $326 million or 17% year-over-year.

IET revenue of $2,928 million for the first quarter of 2025 increased $294 million, or 11% year-over-year. The increase was driven by Gas Technology Equipment, up $246 million or 20% year-over-year, and Climate Technology Solutions, up $95 million or 114% year-over-year.

Segment EBITDA for the quarter was $501 million, an increase of $114 million, or 30% year-over-year. The year-over-year increase in segment EBITDA was driven by productivity, positive pricing and increased volume including higher proportionate growth in GTE, partially offset by cost inflation.

Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures

Management provides non-GAAP financial measures because it believes such measures are widely accepted financial indicators used by investors and analysts to analyze and compare companies on the basis of operating performance (including adjusted EBITDA; adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes; and adjusted diluted earnings per share) and liquidity (free cash flow) and that these measures may be used by investors to make informed investment decisions. Management believes that the exclusion of certain identified items from several key operating performance measures enables us to evaluate our operations more effectively, to identify underlying trends in the business, and to establish operational goals for certain management compensation purposes. Management also believes that free cash flow is an important supplemental measure of our cash performance but should not be considered as a measure of residual cash flow available for discretionary purposes, or as an alternative to cash flow from operating activities presented in accordance with GAAP.

Table 1a. Reconciliation of Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes to Adjusted EBITDA and Segment EBITDA

	Three Months Ended
(in millions)	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Net income attributable to Baker Hughes (GAAP)	$	402	$	1,179		$	455
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests		7		11			8
Provision (benefit) for income taxes		152		(398	)		178
Interest expense, net		51		54			41
Depreciation & amortization		285		291			283
Restructuring		—		258			—
Inventory impairment⁽¹⁾		—		73			—
Change in fair value of equity securities⁽²⁾		140		(196	)		(52	)
Other charges and credits⁽²⁾		—		38			30
Adjusted EBITDA (non-GAAP)		1,037		1,310			943
Corporate costs		85		84			88
Other income / (expense) not allocated to segments		1		—			—
Total Segment EBITDA (non-GAAP)	$	1,124	$	1,394		$	1,030
OFSE		623		755			644
IET		501		639			386

⁽¹⁾ Charges for inventory impairments are reported in “Cost of goods sold” in the condensed consolidated statements of income (loss).

⁽²⁾ Change in fair value of equity securities and other charges and credits are reported in “Other (income) expense, net” on the condensed consolidated statements of income (loss).

Table 1a reconciles net income attributable to Baker Hughes, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to adjusted EBITDA and Segment EBITDA. Adjusted EBITDA and Segment EBITDA exclude the impact of certain identified items.

Table 1b. Reconciliation of Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes to Adjusted Net Income Attributable to Baker Hughes

	Three Months Ended
(in millions, except per share amounts)	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Net income attributable to Baker Hughes (GAAP)	$	402		$	1,179		$	455
Restructuring		—			258			—
Inventory impairment		—			73			—
Change in fair value of equity securities		140			(196	)		(52	)
Other adjustments		—			30			32
Tax adjustments⁽¹⁾		(32	)		(650	)		(6	)
Total adjustments, net of income tax		108			(485	)		(26	)
Less: adjustments attributable to noncontrolling interests		—			—			—
Adjustments attributable to Baker Hughes		108			(485	)		(26	)
Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes (non-GAAP)	$	509		$	694		$	429

Denominator:
Weighted-average shares of Class A common stock outstanding diluted		999			999			1,004
Adjusted earnings per share – diluted (non-GAAP)	$	0.51		$	0.70		$	0.43

⁽¹⁾All periods reflect the tax associated with the other (income) loss adjustments.

Table 1b reconciles net income attributable to Baker Hughes, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes. Adjusted net income attributable to Baker Hughes excludes the impact of certain identified items.

Table 1c. Reconciliation of Net Cash Flows From Operating Activities to Free Cash Flow

	Three Months Ended
(in millions)	March 31, 2025			December 31, 2024			March 31, 2024
Net cash flows from operating activities (GAAP)	$	709		$	1,189		$	784
Add: cash used for capital expenditures, net of proceeds from disposal of assets		(255	)		(295	)		(282	)
Free cash flow (non-GAAP)	$	454		$	894		$	502

Table 1c reconciles net cash flows from operating activities, which is the directly comparable financial result determined in accordance with GAAP, to free cash flow. Free cash flow is defined as net cash flows from operating activities less expenditures for capital assets plus proceeds from disposal of assets.


Financial Tables (GAAP)

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss)

(Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended March 31,
(In millions, except per share amounts)		2025			2024
Revenue	$	6,427		$	6,418
Costs and expenses:
Cost of revenue		4,952			4,976
Selling, general and administrative		577			618
Research and development costs		146			164
Other (income) expense, net		140			(22	)
Interest expense, net		51			41
Income before income taxes		561			641
Provision for income taxes		(152	)		(178	)
Net income		409			463
Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests		7			8
Net income attributable to Baker Hughes Company	$	402		$	455

Per share amounts:
Basic income per Class A common stock	$	0.41		$	0.46
Diluted income per Class A common stock	$	0.40		$	0.45

Weighted average shares:
Class A basic		992			998
Class A diluted		999			1,004

Cash dividend per Class A common stock	$	0.23		$	0.21

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position

(Unaudited)

(In millions)	March 31, 2025		December 31, 2024
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	3,277	$	3,364
Current receivables, net		6,710		7,122
Inventories, net		5,161		4,954
All other current assets		1,693		1,771
Total current assets		16,841		17,211
Property, plant and equipment, less accumulated depreciation		5,168		5,127
Goodwill		6,126		6,078
Other intangible assets, net		3,927		3,951
Contract and other deferred assets		1,680		1,730
All other assets		4,368		4,266
Total assets	$	38,110	$	38,363
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	4,465	$	4,542
Short-term debt		55		53
Progress collections and deferred income		5,589		5,672
All other current liabilities		2,485		2,724
Total current liabilities		12,594		12,991
Long-term debt		5,969		5,970
Liabilities for pensions and other postretirement benefits		985		988
All other liabilities		1,356		1,359
Equity		17,206		17,055
Total liabilities and equity	$	38,110	$	38,363

Outstanding Baker Hughes Company shares:
Class A common stock		990		990

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Unaudited)
	Three Months Ended March 31,
(In millions)		2025			2024
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income	$	409		$	463
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash flows from operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization		285			283
Stock-based compensation cost		50			51
Change in fair value of equity securities		140			(52	)
Benefit for deferred income taxes		(53	)		(24	)
Working capital		218			209
Other operating items, net		(340	)		(146	)
Net cash flows provided by operating activities		709			784
Cash flows from investing activities:
Expenditures for capital assets		(300	)		(333	)
Proceeds from disposal of assets		45			51
Other investing items, net		(55	)		13
Net cash flows used in investing activities		(310	)		(269	)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Dividends paid		(229	)		(210	)
Repurchase of Class A common stock		(188	)		(158	)
Other financing items, net		(85	)		(59	)
Net cash flows used in financing activities		(502	)		(427	)
Effect of currency exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents		16			(17	)
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		(87	)		71
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period		3,364			2,646
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period	$	3,277		$	2,717
Supplemental cash flows disclosures:
Income taxes paid, net of refunds	$	207		$	108
Interest paid	$	50		$	48

Supplemental Financial Information

Supplemental financial information can be found on the Company’s website at: investors.bakerhughes.com in the Financial Information section under Quarterly Results.

Conference Call and Webcast

The Company has scheduled an investor conference call to discuss management’s outlook and the results reported in today’s earnings announcement. The call will begin at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time, 8:30 a.m. Central time on Wednesday, April 23, 2025, the content of which is not part of this earnings release. The conference call will be broadcast live via a webcast and can be accessed by visiting the Events and Presentations page on the Company’s website at: investors.bakerhughes.com. An archived version of the webcast will be available on the website for one month following the webcast.

Forward-Looking Statements

This news release (and oral statements made regarding the subjects of this release) may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (each a “forward-looking statement”). Forward-looking statements concern future circumstances and results and other statements that are not historical facts and are sometimes identified by the words “may,” “will,” “should,” “potential,” “intend,” “expect,” “would,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “overestimate,” “underestimate,” “believe,” “could,” “project,” “predict,” “continue,” “target,” “goal” or other similar words or expressions. There are many risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are also affected by the risk factors described in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2024 and those set forth from time to time in other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The documents are available through the Company’s website at: www.investors.bakerhughes.com or through the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering and Analysis Retrieval system at: www.sec.gov. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, except as required by law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any of these forward-looking statements.

Our expectations regarding our business outlook and business plans; the business plans of our customers; oil and natural gas market conditions; cost and availability of resources; economic, legal and regulatory conditions, and other matters are only our forecasts regarding these matters.

These forward-looking statements, including forecasts, may be substantially different from actual results, which are affected by many risks, along with the following risk factors and the timing of any of these risk factors:

Economic and political conditions – the impact of worldwide economic conditions and rising inflation; the impact of tariffs and the potential for significant increases thereto; the impact of global trade policy and the potential for significant changes thereto; the effect that declines in credit availability may have on worldwide economic growth and demand for hydrocarbons; foreign currency exchange fluctuations and changes in the capital markets in locations where we operate; and the impact of government disruptions and sanctions.
Orders and RPO – our ability to execute on orders and RPO in accordance with agreed specifications, terms and conditions and convert those orders and RPO to revenue and cash.
Oil and gas market conditions – the level of petroleum industry exploration, development and production expenditures; the price of, volatility in pricing of, and the demand for crude oil and natural gas; drilling activity; drilling permits for and regulation of the shelf and the deepwater drilling; excess productive capacity; crude and product inventories; liquefied natural gas supply and demand; seasonal and other adverse weather conditions that affect the demand for energy; severe weather conditions, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, that affect exploration and production activities; Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) policy and the adherence by OPEC nations to their OPEC production quotas.
Terrorism and geopolitical risks – war, military action, terrorist activities or extended periods of international conflict, particularly involving any petroleum-producing or consuming regions, including Russia and Ukraine; and the recent conflict in the Middle East; labor disruptions, civil unrest or security conditions where we operate; potentially burdensome taxation, expropriation of assets by governmental action; cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents or attacks; epidemic outbreaks.

About Baker Hughes:

Baker Hughes (Nasdaq: BKR) is an energy technology company that provides solutions to energy and industrial customers worldwide. Built on a century of experience and conducting business in over 120 countries, our innovative technologies and services are taking energy forward – making it safer, cleaner and more efficient for people and the planet. Visit us at bakerhughes.com.

For more information, please contact:

Investor Relations

Chase Mulvehill
+1 346-297-2561
investor.relations@bakerhughes.com

Media Relations

Adrienne Lynch
+1 713-906-8407
adrienne.lynch@bakerhughes.com

The MIL Network –

April 23, 2025

MIL-OSI: Willis Lease Finance Corporation Announces Timing of First Quarter 2025 Earnings and Conference Call

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

COCONUT CREEK, Fla., April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Willis Lease Finance Corporation (NASDAQ: WLFC) (“WLFC”) plans to announce its financial results for the first quarter of 2025 on Tuesday, May 6, 2025.

WLFC plans to hold a conference call led by members of WLFC’s executive management team on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time to discuss its first quarter 2025 results. Individuals wishing to participate in the conference call should dial: US and Canada (800) 289-0459, International +1 (646) 828-8082, wait for the conference operator and provide the operator with the Conference ID 578662. The conference call may also be accessed by registering via the following link: https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1716437&tp_key=f56060bee8. A digital replay will be available two hours after the completion of the conference call. To access the replay, please visit our website at www.wlfc.global under the Investor Relations section for details.

A copy of this press release will be posted to the Investor Relations section of the Company’s website, www.wlfc.global, prior to the call.

Willis Lease Finance Corporation

Willis Lease Finance Corporation leases large and regional spare commercial aircraft engines, auxiliary power units and aircraft to airlines, aircraft engine manufacturers and maintenance, repair, and overhaul providers worldwide. These leasing activities are integrated with engine and aircraft trading, engine lease pools and asset management services through Willis Asset Management Limited, as well as various end-of-life solutions for engines and aviation materials provided through Willis Aeronautical Services, Inc. Additionally, through Willis Engine Repair Center^®, Jet Centre by Willis, and Willis Aviation Services Limited, the Company’s service offerings include Part 145 engine maintenance, aircraft line and base maintenance, aircraft disassembly, parking and storage, airport FBO and ground and cargo handling services.

CONTACT: Scott B. Flaherty

Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

sflaherty@willislease.com

561.413.0112

The MIL Network –

April 23, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: These 3 climate misinformation campaigns are operating during the election run-up. Here’s how to spot them
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alfie Chadwick, PhD Candidate, Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub, Monash University

Australia’s climate and energy wars are at the forefront of the federal election campaign as the major parties outline vastly different plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle soaring power prices.

Meanwhile, misinformation about climate change has permeated public debate during the campaign, feeding false and misleading claims about renewable energy, gas and global warming.

This is a dangerous situation. In Australia and globally, rampant misinformation has for decades slowed climate action – creating doubt, hindering decision-making and undermining public support for solutions.

Here, we explain the history of climate misinformation in Australia and identify three prominent campaigns operating now. We also outline how Australians can protect themselves from misinformation as they head to the polls.

Misinformation vs disinformation

Misinformation is defined as false information spread unintentionally. It is distinct from disinformation, which is deliberately created to mislead.

However, proving intent to mislead can be challenging. So, the term misinformation is often used as a general term to describe misleading content, while the term disinformation is reserved for cases where intent is proven.

Disinformation is typically part of a coordinated
campaign to influence public opinion. Such campaigns can be run by corporate interests, political groups, lobbying organisations or individuals.

Once released, these false narratives may be picked up by others, who pass them on and create misinformation.

Climate change misinformation in Australia

In the 1980s and 1990s, Australia’s emissions-reduction targets were among the most ambitious in the world.

At the time, about 60 companies were responsible for one-third of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The government’s plan included measures to ensure these companies remained competitive while reducing their climate impact.

Despite this, Australia’s resource industry began a concerted media campaign to oppose any binding emissions-reduction actions, claiming it would ruin the economy by making Australian businesses uncompetitive.

This narrative persisted even when modelling repeatedly showed climate policies would have minimal economic impacts. The industry arguments eventually found their way into government policy.

Momentum against climate action was also fuelled by a vocal group of climate change-denying individuals and organisations, often backed by multinational fossil fuel companies. These deniers variously claimed climate change wasn’t happening, it was caused by natural cycles, or wasn’t that a serious threat.

These narratives were further exacerbated by false balance in media coverage, whereby news outlets, in an effort to appear neutral, often placed climate scientists alongside contrarians, giving the impression that the science was still unclear.

Together, this created an environment in Australia where climate action was seen as either too economically damaging or simply unnecessary.

What’s happening in the federal election campaign?

Climate misinformation has been circulating in the following forms during this federal election campaign.

1. Trumpet of Patriots

Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party ran an advertisement that claimed to expose “ the truth about climate change”. It featured a clip from a 2004 documentary, in which a scientist discusses data suggesting temperatures in Greenland were not rising. The scientist in the clip has since said his comments are now outdated.

The type of misinformation is cherry-picking – presenting one scientific measurement at odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Google removed the ad after it was flagged as misleading, but only after it received 1.9 million views.

2. Responsible Future Illawarra

The Responsible Future campaign opposes wind turbines on various grounds, including cost, foreign ownership, power prices, effects on views and fishing, and potential ecological damage.

Scientific evidence indicates offshore wind farms are relatively safe for marine life and cause less harm than boats and fishing gear. Some studies also suggest the infrastructure can create new habitat for marine life.

However, a general lack of research into offshore wind and marine life has created uncertainty that groups such as Responsible Future Illawarra can exploit.

It has cited statements by Sea Shepherd Australia to argue offshore wind farms damage marine life – however Sea Shepherd said its comments were misrepresented.

The group also appears to have deliberately spread disinformation. This includes citing a purported research paper saying offshore wind turbines would kill up to 400 whales per year, when the paper does not exist.

3. Australians for Natural Gas

Australians for Natural Gas is a pro-gas group set up by the head of a gas company, which presents itself as a grassroots organisation. Its advertising campaign promotes natural gas as a necessary part of Australia’s fuel mix, and stresses its contribution to jobs and the economy.

The ad campaign implicitly suggests climate action – in this case, a shift to renewable energy – is harmful to the economy, livelihoods and energy security. According to Meta’s Ad Library, these adds have already been seen more than 1.1 million times.

Gas is needed in Australia’s current energy mix. But analysis shows it could be phased out almost entirely if renewable energy and storage was sufficiently increased and business and home electrification continues to rise.

And of course, failing to tackle climate change will cause substantial harm across Australia’s economy.

How to identify misinformation

As the federal election approaches, climate misinformation and disinformation is likely to proliferate further. So how do we distinguish fact from fiction?

One way is through “pre-bunking” – familiarising yourself with common claims made by climate change deniers to fortify yourself against misinformation

Sources such as Skeptical Science offer in-depth analyses of specific claims.

The SIFT method is another valuable tool. It comprises four steps:
- Stop
- Investigate the source
- Find better coverage
- Trace claims, quotes and media to their original sources.
As the threat of climate change grows, a flow of accurate information is vital to garnering public and political support for vital policy change.

Alfie Chadwick is a recipient of an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

Libby Lester receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. These 3 climate misinformation campaigns are operating during the election run-up. Here’s how to spot them – https://theconversation.com/these-3-climate-misinformation-campaigns-are-operating-during-the-election-run-up-heres-how-to-spot-them-253441
MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –
April 23, 2025

CONTACT:	Scott B. Flaherty
	Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
	sflaherty@willislease.com
	561.413.0112

Category: Australia

Decrease in asset values due to COVID-19

An unlikely candidate

The top papabili

One tough act to follow

What is mindfulness?

We reviewed the evidence

Some anger management strategies aren’t backed by science

Mindfulness is not a magic bullet

Why so similar?

Lining up the voters

The problem of where to set up shop

A centrist equilibrium

Not literal, but still illuminating

Background

An unlikely candidate

The top papabili

One tough act to follow

State of play

Target seats

Chances elsewhere

Numbers game

Trump’s US ratings have fallen well below net zero

Australians know little about the ADF’s role

Support for increasing defence spending is mixed

Most still support the US, despite Trump

The climbing Greens vote

Capturing young hearts and minds

Not doing enough

Divided by gender

What is ‘responsible gambling’?

How it all began

Stacking the odds

The blame game

Ideas for the future

A long overdue change

From tin sheds, red brick buildings to weatherboard structures and ex-army Nissen huts, the home base for CFA brigades across Victoria has evolved significantly over the last 80 years.

A closer look

Life as we don’t know it

Moving beyond chemistry

On climate, Australians fall into six groups

Our views aren’t set in stone

What information would change minds?

The trust gap

What about action?

Why does this matter?

Misinformation vs disinformation

Climate change misinformation in Australia

What’s happening in the federal election campaign?

3. Australians for Natural Gas

How to identify misinformation