NewzIntel.com

Category: DJF

  • MIL-Evening Report: Jaws at 50: how two musical notes terrified an entire generation

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Cole, Composer and Lecturer in Screen Composition, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney

    Universal Pictures

    Our experience of the world often involves hearing our environment before seeing it. Whether it’s the sound of something moving through nearby water, or the rustling of vegetation, our fear of the unseen is rooted in our survival instincts as a species.

    Cinematic sound and music taps into these somewhat unsettling instincts – and this is exactly what director Steven Spielberg and composer John Williams achieved in the iconic 1975 thriller Jaws. The sound design and musical score work in tandem to confront the audience with a mysterious killer animal.

    In what is arguably the film’s most iconic scene, featuring beach swimmers’ legs flailing underwater, the shark remains largely unseen – yet the sound perfectly conveys the threat at large.

    Creating tension in a soundtrack

    Film composers aim to create soundscapes that will profoundly move and influence their audience. And they express these intentions through the use of musical elements such as rhythm, harmony, tempo, form, dynamics, melody and texture.

    In Jaws, the initial encounter with the shark opens innocently with the sound of an offshore buoy and its clanging bell. The scene is established both musically and atmospherically to evoke a sense of isolation for the two characters enjoying a late-night swim on an empty beach.

    But once we hear the the low strings, followed by the central two-note motif played on a tuba, we know something sinister is afoot.

    This compositional technique of alternating between two notes at an increasing speed has long been employed by composers, including by Antonín Dvořák in his 1893 work New World Symphony.

    John Williams reportedly used six basses, eight cellos, four trombones and a tuba to create the blend of low frequencies that would go on to define his entire Jaws score.

    The bass instruments emphasise the lower end of the musical frequency spectrum, evoking a dark timbre that conveys depth, power and intensity. String players can use various bowing techniques, such as staccato and marcato, to deliver dark and even menacing tones, especially in the lower registers.

    Meanwhile, there is a marked absence of tonality in the repeating E–F notes, played with increasing speed on the tuba. Coupled with the intensifying dynamics in the instrumental blend, this accelerating two-note motif signals the looming danger before we even see it – tapping into our instinctive fear of the unknown.

    The use of the two-note motif and lower-end orchestration characterises a composition style that aims to unsettle and disorientate the audience. Another example of this style can be heard in Bernard Herrmann’s car crash scene audio in North by Northwest (1959).

    Similarly, in Sergei Prokofiev’s Scythian Suite, the opening of the second movement (Dance of the Pagan Gods) uses an alternating D#–E motif.

    The elasticity of Williams’ motif allows the two notes to be played on different instruments throughout the soundtrack, exploring various timbral possibilities to induce a kaleidoscope of fear, panic and dread.

    The psychology behind our response

    What is it that makes the Jaws soundtrack so psychologically confronting, even without the visuals? Music scholars have various theories. Some suggest the two notes imitate the sound of human respiration, while others have proposed the theme evokes the heartbeat of a shark.

    Williams explained his approach in an interview with the Los Angeles Times:

    I fiddled around with the idea of creating something that was very … brainless […] Meaning something could be very repetitious, very visceral, and grab you in your gut, not in your brain. […] It could be something you could play very softly, which would indicate that the shark is far away when all you see is water. Brainless music that gets louder and gets closer to you, something is gonna swallow you up.

    Williams plays with the audience’s emotions throughout the film’s score, culminating in the scene Man Against Beast – a celebration of thematic development and heightened orchestration.

    The film’s iconic soundtrack has created a legacy that extends beyond the visual. And this suggests the score isn’t just a soundtrack – but a character in its own right.

    By using music to reveal what is hidden, Williams creates an intense emotional experience rife with anticipation and tension. The score’s two-note motif showcases his genius – and serves as a sonic shorthand that has kept a generation behind the breakers of every beach.

    Alison Cole 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. Jaws at 50: how two musical notes terrified an entire generation – https://theconversation.com/jaws-at-50-how-two-musical-notes-terrified-an-entire-generation-258068

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How high can US debt go before it triggers a financial crisis?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Hartigan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney

    rarrarorro/Shutterstock

    The tax cuts bill currently being debated by the US Senate will add another US$3 trillion (A$4.6 trillion) to US debt. President Donald Trump calls it the “big, beautiful bill”; his erstwhile policy adviser Elon Musk called it a “disgusting abomination”.

    Foreign investors have already been rattled by Trump’s upending of the global trade system. The eruption of war in the Middle East would usually lead to “flight to safety” buying of the US dollar, but the dollar has barely budged. That suggests US assets are not seen as the safe haven they used to be.

    Greg Combet, chair of Australia’s own sovereign wealth fund, the Future Fund, outlined many of the new risks arising from US policies in a speech on Tuesday.

    As investors turn cautious on the US, at some point the surging US debt pile will become unsustainable. That could risk a financial crisis. But at what point does that happen?

    The public sector holds a range of debt

    When talking about the sustainability of US government debt, we have to distinguish between total debt and public debt.

    Public debt is owed to individuals, companies, foreign governments and investors. This accounts for about 80% of total US debt. The remainder is intra-governmental debt held by government agencies and the Federal Reserve.

    Public debt is a more correct measure of US government debt. And it is much less than the headline total government debt amount that is frequently quoted, which is running at US$36 trillion or 121% of GDP.

    Are there limits to government debt?

    Governments are not like households. They can feasibly roll over debt indefinitely and don’t technically need to repay it, unlike a personal credit card. And countries such as the US that issue debt in their own currency can’t technically default unless they choose to.

    Debt also serves a useful role. It is the main way a government funds infrastructure projects. It is an important channel for monetary policy, because the US Federal Reserve sets the benchmark interest rate that affects borrowing costs across the economy. And because the US government issues bonds, known as Treasuries, to finance the debt, this is an important asset for investors.

    There is probably some limit to the amount of debt the US government can issue. But we don’t really know what this amount is, and we won’t know until we get there. Additionally, the US’s reserve currency status, due to the US dollar’s dominant role in international finance, gives the US government more leeway than other governments.

    Interest costs are surging

    What is important is the government’s ability to service its debt – that is, to pay the interest cost. This depends on two components: growth in economic activity, and the interest rate on government debt.

    If economic growth on average is higher than the interest rate, then the government’s effective interest cost is negative and it could sustainably carry its existing debt burden.

    The interest cost of US government debt has surged recently following a series of Federal Reserve interest rate hikes in 2022 and 2023 to quell inflation.

    The US government is now spending more on interest payments than on defence – about US$882 billion annually. This will soon start crowding out spending in other areas, unless taxes are raised or further spending cuts made.

    Recent policy decisions not helping

    The turmoil caused by Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and heightened uncertainty about future government policy are expected to weaken US economic growth and raise inflation. This, coupled with the recent credit downgrade of US government debt by ratings agency Moody’s, is likely to put upward pressure on US interest rates, further increasing the servicing cost of US government debt.

    Moody’s cited concerns about the growth of US federal debt. This comes as the US House of Representatives passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, which seeks to extend the 2017 tax cuts indefinitely while slashing social spending. This has caused some to question the sustainability of the US government’s fiscal position.

    The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will add a further US$3 trillion to government debt over the ten years to 2034, increasing debt to 124% of GDP. And this would increase to US$4.5 trillion over ten years and take debt to 128% of GDP if some tax initiatives were made permanent.

    Also troubling is Section 899 of the bill, known as the “revenge tax”. This controversial provision raises the tax payable by foreign investors and could further deter foreign investment, potentially making US government debt even less attractive.

    A compromised Federal Reserve is the next risk

    The passing of the tax and spending bill is unlikely to cause a financial crisis in the US. But the US could be entering into a period of “fiscal dominance”, which is just as concerning.

    In this situation, the independence of the Federal Reserve might be compromised if it is pressured to support the US government’s fiscal position. It would do this by keeping interest rates lower than otherwise, or buying government debt to support the government instead of targeting inflation. Trump has already been putting pressure on Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, demanding he cut rates immediately.

    This could lead to much higher inflation in the US, as occurred in Germany in the 1920s, and more recently in Argentina and Turkey.

    Luke Hartigan receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP230100959)

    – ref. How high can US debt go before it triggers a financial crisis? – https://theconversation.com/how-high-can-us-debt-go-before-it-triggers-a-financial-crisis-258812

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia? So far, the evidence is unclear

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

    The Conversation, CC BY-NC

    The first term of the Albanese government was defined by its fight against inflation, but the second looks like it will be defined by a need to kick start Australia’s sluggish productivity growth.

    Productivity is essentially the art of earning more while working less and is critical for driving our standard of living higher.

    The Productivity Commission, tasked with figuring out how to get Australia’s sluggish productivity back on track, is pushing hard for corporate tax cuts as a key part of their plan for building a “dynamic and resilient economy”.

    The idea? Lower taxes will attract more foreign investment, get businesses spending again and eventually boost workers’ productivity.

    Commission chair, Danielle Wood, said last week while the commission wanted to create more investment opportunities, it was aware this would hit the budget bottom line:

    So we’re looking at ways to spur investment while finding other ways we might be able to pick up revenue in the system.

    The general company tax rate is currently 30% for large firms, and there’s a reduced rate of 25% for smaller companies with an overall turnover of less than A$50 million.

    What the textbooks and other countries tell us

    The Productivity Commission’s theory makes sense: if you make capital cheaper and you should get more of it flowing in.

    A larger stock of capital means there is more to invest in Australian workers. This should make us more productive and help boost workers’ wages. And looking overseas, the evidence mostly backs this up.

    A meta-analysis of 25 studies covering the US, UK, Japan, France, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland,
    Denmark, Portugal and Finland found every percentage point you slice off the corporate tax rate brings in about 3.3% more foreign direct investment.

    Other research shows multinational companies really do move their operations to places with lower tax rates. This explains why we’re seeing this race to the bottom across Europe and North America, with countries constantly trying to undercut each other.

    Research on location decisions shows how multinationals reshuffle their operations based on effective average tax rates.

    Even within the United States, a US study found increases in corporate tax rates lead to big reductions in employment and wage income. However, corporate tax cuts can boost economic activity – though typically only if they are implemented during recessions.

    Australia’s limited track record

    Here in Australia we don’t have much local evidence to go on, and what we do have is pretty puzzling.

    This matters because Australia’s corporate tax system has some unique features that may make overseas evidence less relevant. We have dividend imputation (franking credits), different treatment of capital gains, access to immediate reimbursement for some small business expenses and complex capitalisation rules that limit debt deductions for multinationals.

    The Federal Government is focussed on improving productivity. In this five-part series, we’ve asked leading experts what that means for the economy, what’s holding us back and their best ideas for reform.

    A study by a group of Australian National University economists looked at how the tax system affects business investment. They examined the [2015 and 2016 corporate tax cuts] for small businesses using data on business investment from the Australian Bureau of Statistics combined with tax data from the Australian Tax Office.

    The findings were mixed. After the 2015 cut, firms already investing in buildings and equipment spent more — that is, the policy boosted investment only at the intensive margin.

    By contrast, there was no evidence it enticed firms that had not been investing to start doing so. The follow-up cut in 2016 had even less bite. Its estimated effect on investment was so small it is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

    It remains unclear why the previous corporate tax reductions largely failed to produce a measurable increase in investment. Perhaps the tax cut itself was simply too modest. Or the available data was too volatile to capture its effects.

    But it runs contrary to what economic theory tells us to expect. This should give us pause for thought.

    The big questions nobody can answer yet

    For politicians thinking about another round of corporate tax cuts, this creates an uncomfortable situation. We’ve got solid evidence from overseas it works, but only one weak data point from Australia, plus a lot of head-scratching about why the second cut didn’t move the dial.

    Fortunately, the Productivity Commission has the in-house expertise to further investigate this question.

    Before we make further cuts to the company tax rate, we should have an in-depth study of these two tax cuts replicating and extending the previous work to see what effect – if any – they had on investment, employment, productivity and Australian living standards.

    Until we can solve these puzzles, Australia’s debate over corporate tax rates will keep spinning its wheels. Much like our national productivity itself.

    Isaac Gross 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. Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia? So far, the evidence is unclear – https://theconversation.com/would-a-corporate-tax-cut-boost-productivity-in-australia-so-far-the-evidence-is-unclear-258575

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia could become the world’s first net-zero exporter of fossil fuels – here’s how

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University

    Photo by Jie Zhao/Corbis via Getty Images

    Australia is the world’s third largest exporter of gas and second largest exporter of coal. When burned overseas, these exports result in 1.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year – almost three times Australia’s domestic emissions.

    Emissions embedded in Australia’s exports do not count towards our national emissions targets. But they contribute to climate change – and they’re the reason for Australia’s international reputation as a fossil-fuel economy.

    On the bright side, Australia boasts huge potential for low-cost renewable energy and a knack for resource industries.

    We can, and should, become a “renewable energy superpower”. This term refers to the potential for Australia to use its bountiful renewable energy resources to make commodities such as iron, ammonia and other products and fuels in “green” or low-emissions ways.

    So how does Australia give salience to this idea on the global stage, while our fossil fuel exports continue? The solution could be a new net-zero target for Australia, in which emissions from green exports are tallied up against those from fossil fuel exports.

    Australia can become a renewable energy superpower.
    Brook Mitchell/Getty Images

    Reinvigorating Australia’s climate policy

    If the clean energy transition eventuates, green exports from Australia will rise over time. This will help reduce the use of coal, gas and oil elsewhere in the world.

    Meanwhile, coal exports – and later, gas exports – will fall. This will happen irrespective of Australia’s policies, as the world economy decarbonises and demand for fossil fuels slows.

    At some point, we can expect emissions avoided by our green commodity exports to surpass those from remaining coal and gas exports. Australia would then reach what could be termed “net-zero export emissions”.

    Adopting this net-zero target as a national policy would give a concrete yardstick to Australia’s green-export ambitions. It could also invigorate Australia’s climate policy and boost investor confidence.

    A different approach would be to set targets only for green exports, and this could be how we get started. Ultimately, a net-zero target wrapping up both green and fossil-fuel exports would speak most directly to the goal of tackling climate change, and is likely to have more impact on the international stage.

    A net-zero export target would give a concrete yardstick to Australia’s ambition to develop green export industries.
    Brook Mitchell/Getty Images

    Getting to net-zero exports

    The below chart shows an illustrative decline in emissions embedded in Australia’s coal and LNG (liquified natural gas) exports, out to 2050.*


    Authors’ calculations based on Australian Energy Update 2024, Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors 2024, IEA World Energy Outlook 2024

    It’s hard to pin down when Australia might reach net-zero exports. It depends on several factors. How quickly will the cost of clean energy and green-commodity technologies fall? How competitively can Australia produce green goods compared to other nations? What policies will be adopted in Australia and overseas – and will they work?

    The magnitudes are sobering. Take iron, for example. Australia currently exports 900 million tonnes of iron ore a year. This is processed overseas to about 560 million tonnes of iron.

    To fully compensate for emissions currently embedded in Australia’s coal and gas exports, Australia would need to process about the same amount of green iron – around 550 million tonnes – on home soil every year.

    To reach this figure, we assume 0.1 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent is created per tonne of green iron, compared to about 2.1 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent per tonne of iron resulting from conventional blast furnace production.

    Achieving this would require keeping iron ore production at current levels and processing it all in Australia, which is unlikely to be realistic.

    Thankfully, the task of reaching net-zero export emissions will be smaller in future, as global coal and gas demand falls. But exactly how this will translate to Australian exports is highly uncertain.

    Let’s suppose Australia’s exports evolved on the same trajectory as they might under current climate policies and pledges for the global coal and gas trade.

    In this case, embedded emissions from Australia’s coal and gas exports would be about 360 million tonnes in 2050. This includes about 120 million tonnes from LNG exports – much of it locked in by the extension to Woodside’s North West Shelf project off Western Australia.

    Hypothetically, the 360 million tonnes of emissions could be negated by a mix of green exports. They include 102 million tonnes of green iron (saving 204 million tonnes of CO₂), and 11 million tonnes of green ammonia (saving about 23 million tonnes of CO₂), and the remainder covered by a combination of green aluminium, silicon, methanol and transport fuels.

    Judgement calls would be needed about which commodities to include in the target. The composition of green exports suggested above is akin to assumptions about Australia’s potential global market share outlined by The Superpower Institute.

    Importantly, it’s hard to predict with certainty the greenhouse gas emissions displaced elsewhere in the world by Australia’s green exports. So, the estimates should be understood as broad illustrations, and not as exact as the accounting used to calculate countries’ domestic emissions.

    The precise year chosen for reaching a net-zero target for export emissions may well be less important than the commitment that, at some point, Australia’s green energy exports will exceed fossil fuel exports. This would establish the notion that Australia has the capacity and willingness to help the world decarbonise.

    At some point, Australia’s green energy exports will exceed fossil fuel exports.
    David Gray/Getty Images

    A positive agenda for change

    The export target could be part of Australia’s updated emissions pledge due to be submitted to the United Nations by September this year. The pledge, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), is required by signatories to the Paris Agreement.

    Each nation is expected to detail its national emissions target for 2035. But nations can make additional pledges towards the world’s climate change effort. You could call it an “NDC+”.

    So Australia could outline an indicative goal for net-zero exports – perhaps alongside other pledges such as leveraging climate change finance for developing countries, or helping our Pacific neighbours adapt to climate change impacts.

    As a large fossil fuels exporter, Australia would earn kudos for showing it has a positive agenda for change.

    And if Australia wins the bid to host the COP31 climate conference next year, a plan to reduce export emissions could be a major rallying point.

    * Underlying data for the chart showing an expected decline in future emissions embedded in Australia’s coal and LNG exports:

    Exports in 2022–23: coal, 9.6 exajoules (EJ); LNG, 4.5 EJ, from Australian Energy Update. This was multiplied by an emissions factor 90.2 for coal (MtCO₂-e/EJ) and 51.5 for LNG (MtCO₂-e/EJ), as drawn from the Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors

    Exports for 2035 and 2050: this assumes a trend aligned with the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario, as outlined in the World Energy Outlook 2024. Note the percentage changes from 2023 to 2035 and 2050 for coal (-45% and -73% respectively) and for LNG (+9% and -47% respectively.) These figures do not distinguish between steam coal for power and metallurgical coal.

    Frank Jotzo leads research projects on climate, energy and industry policy. He is a commissioner with the NSW Net Zero Commission and chairs the Queensland Clean Economy Expert Panel.

    Annette Zou works on research projects on climate policy and decarbonisation and has previously worked with The Superpower Institute

    – ref. Australia could become the world’s first net-zero exporter of fossil fuels – here’s how – https://theconversation.com/australia-could-become-the-worlds-first-net-zero-exporter-of-fossil-fuels-heres-how-259037

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: We tracked Aussie teens’ mental health. The news isn’t good – and problems are worse for girls

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Smout, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use and Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank, University of Sydney

    skynesher/Getty Images

    We know young people in Australia and worldwide are experiencing growing mental health challenges.

    The most recent national survey from the Australian Bureau of Statistics found nearly two in five (38.8%) 16- to 24-year-olds experienced symptoms of a mental disorder in the previous 12 months.

    This was substantially higher than the last time the survey was run in 2007, when the figure was 26%.

    We’ve published a new study today looking at the rates of mental health problems among Australian high school students specifically. We found almost one in four high school students report mental health problems by Year 10 – and things are worse for girls and gender-diverse teens.

    Tracking teens’ mental health

    In our study, published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, we looked at mental health symptoms in more than 6,500 Australian teens, and how these symptoms changed over time.

    We surveyed high school students from 71 schools annually from Year 7 (age 12/13) to Year 10 (age 15/16). Our sample, while not nationally representative, includes a large cross-section of schools in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.

    We found symptoms of mental health problems increased steadily over time:

    • in Year 7, 17% of students we surveyed reported symptoms which met the criteria for probable depression, increasing to 28% by Year 10
    • some 14% of students reported high psychological distress in Year 7, rising to 24% in Year 10
    • the proportion reporting moderate-to-severe anxiety grew from 16% in Year 7 to 24% by Year 10.

    Which teens were hardest hit?

    We looked at how mental health symptoms over time were linked to different social factors, such as gender, cultural background and family affluence. We also looked at school factors, such as how advantaged a student’s school is.

    We found clear differences in mental health by gender, affluence, and school advantage. Girls and gender diverse teens had higher symptoms in Year 7 and a steeper rise in symptoms over the four years, when compared to their male peers.

    By Year 10, compared to males, females had average symptom scores that were 88% higher for depression, 34% higher for anxiety, and 55% higher for psychological distress (in models that adjusted for other factors).

    Again compared to males and in adjusted models, gender diverse teens had symptom scores at Year 10 that were 121% higher for depression, 55% higher for anxiety, and 89% higher for psychological distress.

    Teens from the least affluent families had 7% higher depressive symptoms than those from the most affluent families in adjusted models, while teens attending the least advantaged schools had 9% higher anxiety symptoms than teens attending the most advantaged schools.

    We then examined how gender and affluence interacted to influence mental health. Girls in the lowest affluence group experienced heightened anxiety and depressive symptoms over and above the effects of affluence or gender alone.

    This shows how multiple factors can stack up, creating greater risk of poor mental health for certain young people.

    Gender-diverse teens were more likely to have poor mental health in our study.
    SeventyFour/Shutterstock

    While we were able to explore a wide range of factors, a limitation of our study was that we could not examine all social factors that may impact mental health. For example, we couldn’t ascertain the potential differences experienced by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander teens or those living in remote and very remote areas.

    How does this data compare to other studies?

    Recent Australian data from similar-aged adolescents is scarce. However, the 2015 Young Minds Matter study found 14.4% of 12- to 17-year-olds experienced a mental disorder in the prior 12 months.

    The higher rates of mental health challenges we observed in our study are likely consistent with recent evidence suggesting “cohort effects” – where each generation has worse mental health than the one before it. Research is still investigating the reasons behind these trends, with avenues of inquiry spanning everything from social media to climate change. But it appears no single factor is to blame.

    The COVID pandemic has also played a role, with young people seeming to be hit particularly hard by mental health impacts of the pandemic.

    Notably, the gender differences between girls and boys are supported by data from global studies, showing this is not a uniquely Australian phenomenon.

    What can we do about the gender divide in mental health?

    With a mental health-care system stretched beyond capacity, it’s crucial we prevent and address mental health problems early. While this requires a multilayered approach, aiming to reduce these gender inequities in mental health is an important place to start.

    While outside the scope of this study, a growing field of research is interrogating why there are gender differences in mental health. Factors identified include:

    These areas indicate avenues for potential solutions, but addressing these factors requires wraparound investment.

    Promisingly, many of these factors are mentioned in the National Women’s Health Strategy. With women’s health a central platform for the Albanese government’s election campaign, hopefully we will see more investment in research and policy to address these issues.

    Importantly, our study found gender inequities in mental health were even more stark for gender diverse teens, so focus should not solely be on girls and women.

    We must design solutions with young people

    Adolescent mental health isn’t something we can tackle with a one-size-fits-all approach. We need strategies that are meaningfully co-designed with young people themselves. Initiatives can then be tailored to meet their unique needs and reflect their diverse experiences.

    When we work directly with priority groups, such as girls, gender diverse teens and those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage, we can offer safe, culturally appropriate and affirming solutions. This helps teens feel seen, heard and supported – all key ingredients for better mental health.

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

    Scarlett Smout receives funding from the BHP Foundation and provides academic support for Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank.

    Katrina Champion receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund and via University of Sydney Horizon Fellowship.

    – ref. We tracked Aussie teens’ mental health. The news isn’t good – and problems are worse for girls – https://theconversation.com/we-tracked-aussie-teens-mental-health-the-news-isnt-good-and-problems-are-worse-for-girls-259044

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Salinas, Bonamici, Dexter, Hoyle, Bynum Statement on the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement

    Source: US Representative Andrea Salinas (OR-06)

    Washington, DC –  Today, Reps. Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), Val Hoyle (OR-04), and Janelle Bynum (OR-05) issued a joint statement on the Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement (RCBA) reached between the Federal Government and the Six Sovereigns—the states of Washington and Oregon, and the Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation:

    Washington, DC –  Today, Reps. Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), Val Hoyle (OR-04), and Janelle Bynum (OR-05) issued a joint statement on the Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement (RCBA) reached between the Federal Government and the Six Sovereigns—the states of Washington and Oregon, and the Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation:

    “We are deeply disappointed in President Trump’s unilateral decision to withdraw from the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement. This agreement enabled a pause to decades of litigation and reaffirmed the federal government’s responsibility to ensure healthy and abundant salmon populations in the Columbia River Basin. 

    President Trump has already threatened Salmon recovery efforts through his nonsensical layoffs at key agencies – like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – which are responsible for operating hatcheries on the Columbia River System. Now, with the stroke of a pen, he has created upheaval and uncertainty for the future of salmon runs, clean energy in the Pacific Northwest, and our nation’s commitment to honoring Tribal treaty rights. 

    Furthermore, this decision was made unilaterally and without any consultation with the four tribes — the Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.

    We have consistently supported federal funding for salmon recovery efforts and clean energy deployment, and it is beyond frustrating to see this Administration take such a sweeping approach to dismantling these essential programs. Moving forward, we will continue to work with our partners across the Pacific Northwest to reach a resilient solution to ensure abundant salmon populations and reliable clean energy for our region.”

     ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Environmental assessment certificate granted for Highland Valley copper mine expansion

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    A B.C. environmental assessment certificate has been issued to Teck Highland Valley Copper Partnership for the Highland Valley Copper Mine Life Extension (HVC) project near Logan Lake, following a joint decision by provincial ministers.

    Tamara Davidson, Minister of Environment and Parks, and Jagrup Brar, Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals, made their decision after carefully considering the environmental assessment by B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office (EAO).

    The HVC project will extend the life of the operating Highland Valley copper mine from 2028 to 2043. The mine expansion is predicted to produce approximately 900 million additional tonnes of ore and nearly two million additional tonnes of copper.

    The ministers noted in their decision that HVC will provide economic benefits to the province, the local community and First Nations. The mine expansion will increase local employment by adding 200 more permanent jobs, along with 500 to 1,250 jobs during construction. The mine currently employs 1,320 people. Without the expansion, the mine would end production in 2028 and wind down its operations.

    To streamline and expedite provincial authorizations for this priority critical minerals project, the EAO co-ordinated with permitting agencies to enable Teck to submit a single application for the environmental assessment certificate and all major permits. The EAO and ministries of Environment and Parks; Mining and Critical Minerals; and Water, Land and Resource Stewardship reviewed the application together in the first fully combined review process under the 2018 Environmental Assessment Act.

    The co-ordinated review is part of work by provincial regulators to achieve efficiencies in decision-making on priority projects. Conducting the assessment and permit reviews together can save as much as two years on provincial authorizations. Permit decisions are expected soon.

    The project assessment involved extensive consultation with technical experts, First Nations, provincial agencies, local governments and the public. In making their decision, the ministers acknowledged that while the HVC project itself would not have significant adverse impacts beyond those of the existing mine, in operation since the 1960s, the expansion would exacerbate the combined impacts from this and other projects in the region on water quantity and First Nations’ access to land and cultural practices.

    As a result, the ministers have included 17 legally binding conditions in the environmental assessment certificate, intended to prevent or reduce potential adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural and health effects from HVC, and mitigate impacts to First Nations.

    With these legally binding requirements, and requirements applied by other regulatory bodies for other provincial authorizations if granted, the ministers determined that significant adverse effects can be prevented or mitigated. Key requirements include developing plans, subject to EAO approval, to:

    • manage and mitigate impacts on surrounding watersheds;
    • avoid or reduce the loss of wetlands and riparian ecosystems;
    • reduce the impacts of the project on Nlaka’pamux Nation food sovereignty to support food, social and ceremonial needs;
    • minimize light pollution prior to and throughout operations; and
    • reduce the impact of construction workers on the availability of accommodations in local communities.

    Under the Environmental Assessment Act, First Nations participating in the process have the opportunity to provide consent or lack of consent for the project. Of the 17 First Nations that engaged in the environmental assessment, 10 consented to the project and two groups representing six First Nations initiated dispute resolution.

    Every project that undergoes an environmental assessment is assessed thoroughly on the specific and individual aspects of that particular project, including its potential environmental, economic, social, cultural and health effects, and impacts on First Nations and their rights.

    Learn More:

    Ministers’ reasons for decision: https://www.projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/api/public/document/6851ab2677f64d00222decb2/download/HVC_Reasons_For_Decision.pdf

    Documentation ministers considered in making their decision: https://www.projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/p/5cd9b4b56a15600025df0cc8/documents?keywords=HVC_Decision

    For more information on the environmental assessment process, visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments

    A backgrounder follows.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Saskatchewan Fire Update June 17

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Released on June 17, 2025

    As of 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 17, there are 13 active wildfires in Saskatchewan. Of those active fires, six are categorized as contained, three are not contained, two are ongoing assessment and two are listed as protecting values.

    This year, Saskatchewan has had 256 wildfires, which is well above the five-year average of 156 to date. 

    Due to favourable weather conditions, the provincial fire ban has been revoked. Provincial parks, municipalities and R.M.s may still have their own local fire ban, restriction or advisory in place. A list of fire restrictions in provincial parks and recreation sites can be found here. The Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency’s (SPSA) interactive fire ban map includes all active bans and can be found here.

    The public is reminded to stay diligent in preventing new wildfires while enjoying time spent outside. Anyone who spots a wildfire can call 1-800-667-9660, dial 9-1-1, or contact their closest SPSA Forest Protection Area office. 

    Five communities remain under an evacuation order: Creighton, Denare Beach, East Trout Lake, Whelan Bay and priority individuals in Cumberland House. 

    Evacuees who have not yet registered are encouraged to do so through the Sask Evac Web Application or by calling 1-855-559-5502 between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. for assistance. 

    Evacuees supported by the Canadian Red Cross can call 1-800-863-6582 between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. A full list of evacuated and repatriated communities can be found on the Information for Evacuees webpage. 

    The SPSA has confirmed more than 350 values have been lost due to wildfires province wide. This number is expected to increase to over 500 as damage continues to be assessed. Confirmation of values lost in Denare Beach is expected this week.

    The latest information, an interactive fire ban map, frequently asked questions, fire risk maps and fire prevention tips can be found at saskpublicsafety.ca.

    Established in 2017, the SPSA is a treasury board Crown corporation responsible for wildfire management, emergency management, Sask911, SaskAlert, the Civic Addressing Registry, the Provincial Disaster Assistance Program and fire safety. 

    -30-

    For more information, contact:

    SPSA Media Desk
    Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency
    Prince Albert
    Phone: 306-798-0094
    Email: media.spsa@gov.sk.ca

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: The One Big Beautiful Bill Stops Waste, Fraud and Abuse in SNAP

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Johnson (LA-04)

    WASHINGTON — Democrats are lying, again, about the One Big Beautiful Bill. They say it will let Americans go hungry — this is completely false. Through the One Big Beautiful Bill, Republicans eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in a bloated, inefficient program — so that the Americans who actually need it — receive it.

    Just take a look at the numbers:

    • SNAP enrollment has increased 17% since 2019, with nearly 42 million Americans now on the program.
    • Since 2019, SNAP spending has surged 83%, skyrocketing from $60 billion to $110 billion annually.
    • More than 70% of able-bodied SNAP recipients without dependents refuse to work, despite federal rules requiring it.
    • States made close to $11 billion in SNAP payment errors last year.
    • Fraudulent SNAP transactions jumped 55% between the last quarter of FY2024 and the first quarter of FY2025, according to USDA data.

    The One Big Beautiful Bill restores integrity to the program by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse:

    • Prevents illegal aliens from receiving benefits.
    • Strengthens work requirements for all able-bodied SNAP recipients without dependents.
    • Preserves targeted exemptions for veterans, the homeless, and individuals aging out of foster care, as well as parents who are pregnant, disabled, participating in an alcohol or drug treatment program, in school at least half time, or taking care of a disabled child or aging parent.
    • Phases in a state cost share starting at 5% in 2028, with higher contributions from states with high error rates, giving states real skin in the game.
    • Phases in a 50% state share of SNAP administrative costs.
    • Closes loopholes in work requirement waivers by eliminating vague criteria like “insufficient jobs” and limiting waivers to counties with unemployment over 10%.

    To be clear, pregnant mothers, disabled Americans, the elderly, and children – those who this program was intended to serve – will continue to receive the assistance they need. But illegal aliens and work-capable individuals who refuse to work will lose access to these benefits meant for the most vulnerable Americans. 

    Democrats will scream “cuts,” but what they’re really defending is a wasteful program that discourages work, mismanages billions, and traps people in dependency. Republicans are proud to defend commonsense welfare reform, fiscal sanity, and the dignity of work.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Going for growth with more overseas investment

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Associate Finance Minister David Seymour welcomes the introduction of legislation to make it easier for New Zealand businesses to receive new investment, grow and pay higher wages. 

    The Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill has been introduced to the House.  

    “New Zealand has been turning away opportunities for growth for too long. Having one of the most restrictive foreign investment regimes in the OECD means we’ve paid the price in lost opportunities, lower productivity, and stagnant wages. This Bill is about reversing that,” says Mr Seymour. 

    “In 2023, New Zealand’s stock of foreign direct investment sat at just 39% of GDP, far below the OECD average of 52%. Investors are looking elsewhere, so we’re showing them why New Zealand is the best place to bring their ideas and capital. 

    “International investment is critical to ensuring economic growth. It provides access to capital and technology that grows New Zealand businesses, enhances productivity, and supports high paying jobs.  

    “New Zealand’s productivity growth has closely tracked the amount of capital workers have had to work with. Our capital-to-labour ratio has seen very little growth in the last 10 years, averaging approximately 0.7 per cent in measured sectors annually. That’s compared to growth in the capital-to-labour ratio in measured sectors of around 2.2 percent in the previous 10 years. Unsurprisingly, productivity growth averaged 1.4 percent a year between 1993 and 2013, but only 0.2 percent between 2013 and 2023. 

    “The Bill will consolidate and simplify the screening process for less sensitive assets, introducing a modified national interest test that will enable the regulator to triage low-risk transactions, replacing the existing benefit to New Zealand test and investor test. If a national interest risk is identified, the regulator and relevant Minister will have a range of tools to manage this, including through imposing conditions or blocking the transaction. 

    The current screening requirements will stay in place for investments in farmland and fishing quota. 

    “For all investments aside from residential land, farmland and fishing quota, decisions must be made in 15 days, unless the application could be contrary to New Zealand’s national interest. In contrast, the current timeframe in the Regulations for the benefit test is 70 days, and the average time taken for decisions to be made is 30 days for this test,” says Mr Seymour.

    “High-value investments, such as significant business assets, existing forestry and non-farmland, account for around $14 billion of gross investment each year. We’re removing the barriers for these investments so that number can grow. 

    “The Ministerial Directive Letter will be updated to provide guidance on which assets should undergo further scrutiny and which risks may be contrary to New Zealand’s national interest. This guidance will provide a degree of certainty to investors and support a flexible regime which is responsive to new and emerging risks. 

    “The updated system brings New Zealand up to speed with other advanced economies. They benefit from the flow of money and the ideas that come with overseas investment. If we are going to raise wages, we can’t afford to ignore the simple fact that our competitors gain money and know-how from outside their borders. 

    “These reforms cut compliance costs, reduce processing times, and restore confidence that New Zealand is open for business. The Bill will be passed by the end of the year and the new regime implemented by early 2026. A new Ministerial Directive Letter will come into force at the same time.”   

    The Bill can be read here: Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 171-1 (2025), Government Bill Contents – New Zealand Legislation

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Data shows mental health access improving

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Minister for Mental Health Matt Doocey has welcomed the latest quarterly results for the Government’s mental health and addiction targets, saying the access targets reflect real progress in delivering faster, more accessible support to New Zealanders.
    “I’m pleased to see that at a national level, 84.3 per cent of people are accessing primary mental health and addiction services within one week, well above the 80 per cent target and well above the quarter one result of 80.8 per cent,”Mr Doocey says.
    “In addition, 82.4 per cent of people are being seen by specialist services within three weeks of referral, also exceeding expectations and two per cent higher than the quarter one result.”
    While the positive national trends in access are encouraging, the Minister acknowledged that performance remains uneven across regions and emphasised the need to lift results in underperforming districts.
    “I have been meeting with Health NZ’s Regional Deputy Chief Executives to understand the challenges and plans to lift performance.
    “In particular, performance on reducing emergency department (ED) stays for mental health related presentations remains a challenge. The national result rose to 66.1 per cent in quarter three, up from 63.5 per cent in quarter one.”
    This average result falls short of the 74 per cent milestone for the Shorter Stays in ED target, twelve of the twenty districts have reached it in quarter three.
    “We know that EDs aren’t always the best place to seek mental health support for a number of reasons, but every year thousands of Kiwis turn up at EDs look for mental health support. That is why we are investing in peers support specialists in eight large hospitals over two years. We are also opening 6 new crisis cafes and boosting telehealth and our community services,” Mr Doocey says.
    “These results show we’re making good progress, but we’re not there yet. This Government is committed to partnering with those working on the frontline to ensure they have the support they need to support others in when they need it.
    “As New Zealand’s first Minister for Mental Health, I have consistently said that accountability is vital and that we will continue to take a proactive approach to improving access and providing timely mental health and addiction support when and where it’s needed.”  
    Note to editors: 

    Factsheets for quarter three results can be found here.
    Faster access to specialist mental health and addiction services: target of 80 percent of people accessing specialist mental health and addiction services are seen within three weeks.

    82.4 percent of people were seen by specialist mental health service within three weeks in quarter 3, compared with 80.4 percent in quarter 1.

    Faster access to primary mental health and addiction services: target of 80 percent of people accessing primary mental health and addiction services through the Access and Choice programme are seen within one week.

    84.3 per cent of people were seen by primary mental health service within one week in quarter 3, compared with 80.8 percent in quarter 1.

    Shorter mental health and addiction-related stays in emergency departments: target of 95 percent of mental health and addiction-related emergency department presentations are admitted, discharged, or transferred from an emergency department within six hours.

    66.1 per cent of people were admitted, discharged, or transferred from an emergency department within six hours in quarter 3, compared with 63.5 percent in quarter 1.

    Increased mental health and addiction workforce development: target of training 500 mental health and addiction professionals each year.

    Increased mental health and addiction workforce development – 349 (This number includes semester one intake only)

    Strengthened focus on prevention and early intervention: target of 25 percent of mental health and addiction investment is allocated towards prevention and early intervention.
    24.4% of investment allocated towards prevention and early intervention

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Mike Zank Appointed Eastern Territory Special Representative

    Source: US GOIAM Union

    IAM International President Brian Bryant has appointed Mike Zank as an Eastern Territory Special Representative, effective June 1, 2025.

    As Special Representative, Zank will support the Eastern Territory’s organizing efforts, assist with negotiations, and mentor emerging union leaders — continuing the work that has defined his career.

    “Mike has done the work, earned the trust of members, and shown the grit and integrity this role demands,” said IAM Eastern Territory General Vice President David Sullivan. “I’m proud to have him as a union brother and to have him work alongside me representing IAM Union members of the Eastern Territory. We’re lucky to have him on our team.”

    Zank’s journey in the labor movement began at O-I Glass in Auburn, N.Y., where he was hired in 2010 and became a proud member of IAM Local 2671. Over the next decade, he worked his way through multiple roles on the production floor, including Production Operator and eventually Upkeep — a skilled role that involves operating and maintaining the glass-forming machinery, troubleshooting, and ensuring safe, high-quality glass production.

    Zank quickly emerged as a leader within his Local. In 2013, he was elected Trustee. By 2014, he became Recording Secretary, and from 2017 to 2021, served as Vice President of the Local.

    Zank’s leadership continued to grow at IAM District 65, where he held roles as Recording Secretary and Vice President, before being appointed and later elected as a Business Representative from June 2021 to March 2022. In that role, Zank made headlines during negotiations on behalf of Local 2920 members at Amentum-AFM East II in Fort Drum, N.Y. The contract secured better wages and working conditions, demonstrating his dedication to protecting members’ rights.

    On April 1, 2022, Zank was appointed as an Associate Organizer for the Eastern Territory, the position he held until this recent promotion. During that time, he played an integral role in growing IAM strength across the region through organizing campaigns and strategic support for locals and districts.

    “Mike brings a wealth of frontline experience and organizing knowledge to the Eastern Territory team,” said IAM International President Brian Bryant. “His rise from the shop floor to union leadership is a testament to what it means to live IAM values. He understands the work, the people who do it, and how to get things done for our members.”

    The post Mike Zank Appointed Eastern Territory Special Representative appeared first on IAM Union.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: SBA Reinstates Rule to Return Federal Contractors to Work

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Small Business Administration announced that it would be reinstating a rule to require government contractors to return to work. Effective Oct. 1, participants in SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program will once again be required to have an actual, physical office within the geographic area in which they are bidding on federal construction contracts. The temporary COVID-era suspension of this rule ends Sept. 30.

    “The Covid-19 emergency has long been over and America is open for business – which means the SBA is requiring 8(a) contractors to return to work if they want to bid on taxpayer-funded federal construction contracts,” said SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler. “Those that seek to build in America should have boots on the ground in America – enabling them to create jobs, complete projects, and better serve U.S. taxpayers.”

    During the Covid-19 pandemic, SBA temporarily suspended the bona fide place of business rule for small business 8(a) construction contractors impacted by widespread economic shutdowns.  Under the applicable rule, 8(a) construction contractors must have a legitimate office that is within their project’s geographical boundary, have at least one full-time employee physically present, and ensure that their bona fide place of business is not a portable trailer, temporary unit, or virtual address.

    Firms participating in the 8(a) program can email questions to their local servicing district office or visit 8(a) Business Development Program.

    # # #

     

     About the 8(a) Business Development Program

    The SBA certifies small businesses considered to be socially and economically disadvantaged under its nine-year 8(a) Business Development Program. The 8(a) program helps these firms develop and grow their businesses through one-to-one counseling, training workshops and management and technical guidance. It also provides access to government contracting opportunities, allowing them to become solid competitors in the federal marketplace.

     

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration

    The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of entrepreneurship. As the leading voice for small businesses within the federal government, the SBA empowers job creators with the resources and support they need to start, grow, and expand their businesses or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov. 

    Related programs: 8(a), Contracting

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Protecting the Northern Sea Route from Conflict and Overexploitation

    Source: France-Diplomatie – Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development

    Press conference by M. Emmanuel Macron, President of the Republic (excerpts)¹ (Nuuk, June 15, 2025)

    (Check against delivery)

    (…)

    GREENLAND

    THE PRESIDENT – Mr Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, let me first thank the Greenlandese authorities for their warm welcome. And let me thank you, Madam Prime Minister, for having organized this trip a few weeks after the State visit of your king and your queen to France. (…)

    In the current situation, Greenland has been put back at the centre of geopolitical challenges, and the Arctic’s peaceful, scientific calling is today under threat. Due to its strategic positioning within the Arctic region and its natural resources, the Kingdom of Denmark’s autonomous territory has become a coveted space and the focus of predatory ambitions. (…) I want to begin by sending a message of Europe’s solidarity and France’s support for Denmark, Greenland and the people of Greenland; a message of respect for your sovereignty and respect for your choices – choices on security, economic and social development and the sustainable management of natural resources; a message of support for your territorial integrity and for the inviolability of your borders, which are not negotiable.

    Together with its European Union partners, France will continue to uphold its principles according to the United Nations Charter. (…) In a few words, everybody thinks – in France, in the European Union – that Greenland is not to be sold, not to be taken. We had very fruitful exchanges with Mr Prime Minister and Madam Prime Minister about strategic issues in the Arctic, and obviously security and the posture of our great challengers, Russia and China, the increasing cooperation between these two powers in the region and elsewhere, and the fact that we want to clearly stand with you in order to face these challenges. And France is ready to increase its cooperation with the seven allies of the Arctic, especially in the framework of the Arctic Council and in the framework of the NB8, the eight Nordic and Baltic countries. And clearly NATO is a place where this coordination and interoperability is seriously organized. (…)

    I reminded your authorities that France is ready to do more with you in terms of security, the economy and education and to help develop concrete projects on the ground, be it hydroelectric power or other projects. I also told the two prime ministers of our proposal to open a consulate general here in Nuuk. (…) A few minutes ago we saw very clearly together the direct impact of climate change here as well. And let me tell you that, facing these challenges, we are ready as well to do much more together. The new maritime route in the new northern sea routes should be preserved, and the region should be preserved, as well, from any type of conflictuality and any type of over-exploitations by other powers. (…)

    Ten years after the Paris Agreement, we see here very clearly that we have to follow up our efforts and to do much more again, together. (…) France is indeed ready to strengthen its scientific and academic cooperation, particularly with regard to studying the long-term impact of global warming in the Arctic. (…)

    Finally, the European Union has also had a presence in Greenland for a long time. Europe is ready to support Greenland’s economic and social development, whether it concerns decarbonized energy, infrastructure, education, sustainable fisheries or critical raw materials. That’s the purpose of the strategic partnership signed in 2023 between the European Union and Greenland, which should enable us to develop sustainable value chains in the strategic raw materials sector; we’d now like to speed up the implementation of this project. (…)

    The situation in Greenland is clearly a wake-up call for all the Europeans. And let me tell you very directly that you are not alone. And when a strategic message is sent to you, I want just for you to know that it’s clearly perceived by the Europeans as targeting a European land. And this flag you have here is our common flag. And we know our common values, and we know our long-standing choices. And this is why it’s very important for French people and all the European people to convey very clearly this message of solidarity and the fact that we stand with you now, for today and for tomorrow. (…)

    Long live Greenland! Long live Denmark! Long live the friendship between Denmark and France, and long live Europe! (…)

    How will this visit to Greenland affect your conversation with Donald Trump at the G7?

    THE PRESIDENT – Look, I informed him about this trip, and I think it makes clear that the Europeans are ready to face the challenges we are and we have here, meaning climate change, economic development and strategic challenges, but at the same time it provides a message that we are ready, all of us, to take our responsibilities in a respectful and cooperative way. (…) And I’m optimistic, because I think there is a way forward in order to clearly build a better future in cooperation and not in provocation or confrontation. (…)

    G7/UKRAINE/MIDDLE EAST

    We were talking a moment ago about the G7, which gets under way in a few hours, in the middle of a war, in the middle of a conflict between Israel and Iran. What do you think the G7 countries can do? Donald Trump has said he’s open to President Putin mediating. What do you think?

    THE PRESIDENT – (…) We must talk about the two major conflicts, the Middle East and Ukraine. And for me, the G7 must aim to bring everyone back together, and therefore, for Ukraine, secure as soon as possible a ceasefire that allows a robust, lasting peace to be built. So I think it’s a question of whether President Trump is prepared to put forward much tougher sanctions against Russia if it refuses to respond to the proposal he made several months ago now and which President Zelenskyy responded to in March. So this is one of the points we’ll be discussing a few days before the NATO summit. And for me, that forum is also the one in which we Europeans must re-engage with the Americans and our other Canadian and Japanese allies, whose great steadfastness and great solidarity regarding the Ukraine conflict I want to highlight here.

    On the Middle East, I believe we’re all united on one position. No one wants to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons, but everyone would like the discussions and negotiations to resume. And here too, the United States of America has a genuine ability to get everyone back round the table, given that, along with the Europeans, it’s an important protagonist in any nuclear agreement, and above all, Israel’s dependence on American weapons and ammunition gives the US an ability to negotiate. I don’t believe that Russia, which is today engaged in a high-intensity conflict and has decided not to adhere to the United Nations Charter for several years now, can be a mediator in any way. I think it’s our collective responsibility to try and re-engage as soon as possible and, first of all, prevent any escalation and get all the protagonists back around the negotiating table. (…)

    ISRAEL/IRAN/GAZA

    On Friday you emphasized Israel’s right to defend itself; you even said that France was prepared to contribute to Israel’s defence. Can you tell us if France has helped Israel in any kind of way since Friday, and if it intends to do so in the coming days? And aren’t you afraid that by backing these Israeli strikes in Iran, France is helping to encourage a scenario similar to what we’ve experienced in Gaza, i.e. a very bloody escalation?

    THE PRESIDENT – I very clearly said on Friday that France was worried about nuclear proliferation, about the IAEA’s report and Iran’s ongoing nuclear activities, and that Iran constitutes a very clear, existential threat for Israel, given what the Iranian regime is saying every day, but [also] a threat for the whole region and even us, because Iran’s activity programme, its ballistic programme and its nuclear programme are threats. But that doesn’t mean I’ve backed anything, and I also said very clearly that France didn’t take part in the operations conducted on 13 June or the following days. And I repeated that France’s position was clear and consistent.

    We believe that these issues – i.e. ballistic and nuclear proliferation – must be resolved around a negotiating table in an international framework and must then lead to monitoring ensured by the relevant international agencies. So we’re calling for all parties involved to return to discussions as soon as possible and for no escalation to be carried out. We haven’t contributed to any defensive operation since then, because haven’t been asked to, and I was able to give my opinion and talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu and Iran’s President Pezeshkian yesterday, and President Trump, and convey exactly the same messages, i.e. urge a resumption of discussions as swiftly as possible on the nuclear and ballistic issue, call for all strikes to be stopped as soon as possible, wherever they come from, and resolve the issue of collective security as soon as possible.

    Finally, I repeated on both Friday and Saturday to all the protagonists how what is happening today, and is obviously worrying us all a great deal in the region, mustn’t make us forget the situation in Gaza. The ceasefire is an imperative. The humanitarian situation is unacceptable. So we’ve absolutely got to secure a ceasefire, get all the hostages released and resume humanitarian aid in Gaza. (…)./.

    ¹M. Macron spoke in French and English.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Protecting the Northern Sea Route from Conflict and Overexploitation

    Source: France-Diplomatie – Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development

    Press conference by M. Emmanuel Macron, President of the Republic (excerpts)¹ (Nuuk, June 15, 2025)

    (Check against delivery)

    (…)

    GREENLAND

    THE PRESIDENT – Mr Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, let me first thank the Greenlandese authorities for their warm welcome. And let me thank you, Madam Prime Minister, for having organized this trip a few weeks after the State visit of your king and your queen to France. (…)

    In the current situation, Greenland has been put back at the centre of geopolitical challenges, and the Arctic’s peaceful, scientific calling is today under threat. Due to its strategic positioning within the Arctic region and its natural resources, the Kingdom of Denmark’s autonomous territory has become a coveted space and the focus of predatory ambitions. (…) I want to begin by sending a message of Europe’s solidarity and France’s support for Denmark, Greenland and the people of Greenland; a message of respect for your sovereignty and respect for your choices – choices on security, economic and social development and the sustainable management of natural resources; a message of support for your territorial integrity and for the inviolability of your borders, which are not negotiable.

    Together with its European Union partners, France will continue to uphold its principles according to the United Nations Charter. (…) In a few words, everybody thinks – in France, in the European Union – that Greenland is not to be sold, not to be taken. We had very fruitful exchanges with Mr Prime Minister and Madam Prime Minister about strategic issues in the Arctic, and obviously security and the posture of our great challengers, Russia and China, the increasing cooperation between these two powers in the region and elsewhere, and the fact that we want to clearly stand with you in order to face these challenges. And France is ready to increase its cooperation with the seven allies of the Arctic, especially in the framework of the Arctic Council and in the framework of the NB8, the eight Nordic and Baltic countries. And clearly NATO is a place where this coordination and interoperability is seriously organized. (…)

    I reminded your authorities that France is ready to do more with you in terms of security, the economy and education and to help develop concrete projects on the ground, be it hydroelectric power or other projects. I also told the two prime ministers of our proposal to open a consulate general here in Nuuk. (…) A few minutes ago we saw very clearly together the direct impact of climate change here as well. And let me tell you that, facing these challenges, we are ready as well to do much more together. The new maritime route in the new northern sea routes should be preserved, and the region should be preserved, as well, from any type of conflictuality and any type of over-exploitations by other powers. (…)

    Ten years after the Paris Agreement, we see here very clearly that we have to follow up our efforts and to do much more again, together. (…) France is indeed ready to strengthen its scientific and academic cooperation, particularly with regard to studying the long-term impact of global warming in the Arctic. (…)

    Finally, the European Union has also had a presence in Greenland for a long time. Europe is ready to support Greenland’s economic and social development, whether it concerns decarbonized energy, infrastructure, education, sustainable fisheries or critical raw materials. That’s the purpose of the strategic partnership signed in 2023 between the European Union and Greenland, which should enable us to develop sustainable value chains in the strategic raw materials sector; we’d now like to speed up the implementation of this project. (…)

    The situation in Greenland is clearly a wake-up call for all the Europeans. And let me tell you very directly that you are not alone. And when a strategic message is sent to you, I want just for you to know that it’s clearly perceived by the Europeans as targeting a European land. And this flag you have here is our common flag. And we know our common values, and we know our long-standing choices. And this is why it’s very important for French people and all the European people to convey very clearly this message of solidarity and the fact that we stand with you now, for today and for tomorrow. (…)

    Long live Greenland! Long live Denmark! Long live the friendship between Denmark and France, and long live Europe! (…)

    How will this visit to Greenland affect your conversation with Donald Trump at the G7?

    THE PRESIDENT – Look, I informed him about this trip, and I think it makes clear that the Europeans are ready to face the challenges we are and we have here, meaning climate change, economic development and strategic challenges, but at the same time it provides a message that we are ready, all of us, to take our responsibilities in a respectful and cooperative way. (…) And I’m optimistic, because I think there is a way forward in order to clearly build a better future in cooperation and not in provocation or confrontation. (…)

    G7/UKRAINE/MIDDLE EAST

    We were talking a moment ago about the G7, which gets under way in a few hours, in the middle of a war, in the middle of a conflict between Israel and Iran. What do you think the G7 countries can do? Donald Trump has said he’s open to President Putin mediating. What do you think?

    THE PRESIDENT – (…) We must talk about the two major conflicts, the Middle East and Ukraine. And for me, the G7 must aim to bring everyone back together, and therefore, for Ukraine, secure as soon as possible a ceasefire that allows a robust, lasting peace to be built. So I think it’s a question of whether President Trump is prepared to put forward much tougher sanctions against Russia if it refuses to respond to the proposal he made several months ago now and which President Zelenskyy responded to in March. So this is one of the points we’ll be discussing a few days before the NATO summit. And for me, that forum is also the one in which we Europeans must re-engage with the Americans and our other Canadian and Japanese allies, whose great steadfastness and great solidarity regarding the Ukraine conflict I want to highlight here.

    On the Middle East, I believe we’re all united on one position. No one wants to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons, but everyone would like the discussions and negotiations to resume. And here too, the United States of America has a genuine ability to get everyone back round the table, given that, along with the Europeans, it’s an important protagonist in any nuclear agreement, and above all, Israel’s dependence on American weapons and ammunition gives the US an ability to negotiate. I don’t believe that Russia, which is today engaged in a high-intensity conflict and has decided not to adhere to the United Nations Charter for several years now, can be a mediator in any way. I think it’s our collective responsibility to try and re-engage as soon as possible and, first of all, prevent any escalation and get all the protagonists back around the negotiating table. (…)

    ISRAEL/IRAN/GAZA

    On Friday you emphasized Israel’s right to defend itself; you even said that France was prepared to contribute to Israel’s defence. Can you tell us if France has helped Israel in any kind of way since Friday, and if it intends to do so in the coming days? And aren’t you afraid that by backing these Israeli strikes in Iran, France is helping to encourage a scenario similar to what we’ve experienced in Gaza, i.e. a very bloody escalation?

    THE PRESIDENT – I very clearly said on Friday that France was worried about nuclear proliferation, about the IAEA’s report and Iran’s ongoing nuclear activities, and that Iran constitutes a very clear, existential threat for Israel, given what the Iranian regime is saying every day, but [also] a threat for the whole region and even us, because Iran’s activity programme, its ballistic programme and its nuclear programme are threats. But that doesn’t mean I’ve backed anything, and I also said very clearly that France didn’t take part in the operations conducted on 13 June or the following days. And I repeated that France’s position was clear and consistent.

    We believe that these issues – i.e. ballistic and nuclear proliferation – must be resolved around a negotiating table in an international framework and must then lead to monitoring ensured by the relevant international agencies. So we’re calling for all parties involved to return to discussions as soon as possible and for no escalation to be carried out. We haven’t contributed to any defensive operation since then, because haven’t been asked to, and I was able to give my opinion and talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu and Iran’s President Pezeshkian yesterday, and President Trump, and convey exactly the same messages, i.e. urge a resumption of discussions as swiftly as possible on the nuclear and ballistic issue, call for all strikes to be stopped as soon as possible, wherever they come from, and resolve the issue of collective security as soon as possible.

    Finally, I repeated on both Friday and Saturday to all the protagonists how what is happening today, and is obviously worrying us all a great deal in the region, mustn’t make us forget the situation in Gaza. The ceasefire is an imperative. The humanitarian situation is unacceptable. So we’ve absolutely got to secure a ceasefire, get all the hostages released and resume humanitarian aid in Gaza. (…)./.

    ¹M. Macron spoke in French and English.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Speech to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce: Saying yes to more housing

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Good morning and thanks to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce for hosting us.

    I have spent most of my life in either the Hutt or Wellington and I love this city and I love our region.

    Some people like to paint this city as only a public service town. The reality, as you all know, is that Wellington is much more than that.

    From innovative startups, world-leading creative industries, and high-tech manufacturing, Wellington has a huge role to play in New Zealand’s economic future.

    Wellington is so much more than the public service and we need to stop defining ourselves by the fact central government is based here.

    We also need to gently – or not so gently – push back at other people around the country who are only too willing to do the same thing.

    Like the rest of the country, Wellington faces difficult economic times. 

    The Government came to office with New Zealand in the midst of a prolonged cost of living crisis, with high inflation, high interest rates, and after years of profligate debt-fuelled government spending.

    Like all big parties, the morning after the night before hasn’t been pretty. The hangover kicked in hard, and we are now grappling with cleaning up the mess. 

    The good news is that we are making progress thanks to fiscal prudence from the government and orthodox economic policy that knows that salvation lies not in ever increasing debt, spending and taxation, but the opposite.

    The economic recovery is under way. 

    Inflation is down and is forecast to stay within the 1 to 3 per cent target band.

    Interest rates are down, and forecast to fall further. 

    The Budget forecasts GDP to rise to healthy rates of around 3 per cent in each of the next two years.

    Wages are forecast to grow faster than the inflation rate, making wage earners better off, on average, in real terms.

    The Budget also forecasts that 240,000 more people will be in work over the forecast period to mid-2029.

    Many New Zealanders may not be feeling better off now, but over time they will – provided we stay the course.

    The recovery remains fragile. Global uncertainty has caused Treasury to peg back its forecasts, especially in the near term.

    The recovery isn’t in danger, but it is likely to be slower than previously forecast.

    As a government, we’re talking straight with New Zealanders about the way ahead. 

    About getting public debt under control and nurturing the economic recovery now under way.

    About carefully managing the public purse. Making sure we’re using taxpayer dollars to pay for the must-haves, rather than the nice to haves.

    About making sure we don’t put the economic recovery at risk – because a growing economy is the route to higher living standards for everyone.

    It hasn’t been easy, but I’m proud of our work so far in government.

    This Government is taking on big challenges.

    We’re going for growth now and securing our economic recovery.

    But we’re also laying the foundations for sustained growth in the medium and long-term.

    We need to be honest with ourselves. 

    New Zealand has been slipping for years.

    Our challenge as a country isn’t just about the last few years, or even the last decade.

    We have low productivity growth, low capital intensity in our firms, low levels of competition in many sectors, challenges in attracting and retaining skills and talent, low uptake of innovation, and a growing tail of New Zealanders leaving school without basic skills.

    Stagnation and mediocrity are not our destiny.

    Not if we make the right choices and not if we have courage.

    Going for economic growth means saying “yes” to things when we’ve said “no” in the past.

    It means taking on some tough political debates that we’ve previously shied away from.

    It means bold decisions which may look difficult at the time but which in hindsight will be regarded incontrovertibly as the right thing to do.

    Managed decline is only inevitable if we let it be.

    HOUSING AND GROWTH

    Today I want to talk to you about housing as a driver of growth.

    One of the things I’ve been trying to emphasise since I became a Minister is that housing has a critical role to play in addressing our economic woes.

    Fixing our housing crisis will help grow the economy by directing investment away from property. It will help the cost of living by making renting or home ownership more affordable. It will help the government books by reducing the amount of money we spend on housing subsidies.

    Most importantly, letting our cities grow will help drive productivity growth, probably our greatest economic challenge.

    It is an irrefutable fact that cities are unparalleled engines of productivity, and the economic evidence shows bigger is better. 

    New Zealand can raise our chronically low productivity rates simply by allowing our towns and cities to grow up and out. We need bigger cities and, to facilitate that, we need more houses. 

    Ultimately, growing cities means growing opportunities – opportunities for jobs, for higher wages, and for a better future.

    Today I want to update you on the raft of reforms we have underway to tackle our housing crisis, and tell you about some additional steps we are taking. 

    OUR GOING FOR HOUSING GROWTH REFORMS

    Last year, I announced the Government’s Going for Housing Growth policy. 

    This is about getting the fundamentals of the housing market sorted.

    Going for Housing Growth consists of three pillars of work:

    Pillar 1 is about freeing up land for development and removing unnecessary planning barriers. Pillar 2 is focused on improving infrastructure funding and financing to support urban growth, and Pillar 3 provides incentives for communities and councils to support growth.

    Pillar 1 is very important. 

    Report after report and inquiry after inquiry has found that our planning system, particularly restrictions on the supply of urban land, are at the heart of our housing affordability challenge.

    We are not a small country by land mass, but our planning system has made it difficult for our cities to grow. As a result, we have excessively high land prices driven by market expectations of an ongoing shortage of developable urban land to meet demand.

    We have been working on the finer details of Pillar 1 since it was announced last year. This pillar includes our work on Housing Growth Targets requiring councils to “live-zone” for 30-years of housing demand, making it easier for cities to expand by abolishing rural-urban boundaries, strengthening the intensification rules, putting in new requirements on councils to enable more mixed-used development, and abolishing minimum floor areas and balcony requirements.

    But freeing up land is not enough on its own. We also need to ensure the timely provision of infrastructure. This is what Pillar 2 is all about, and includes replacing development contributions with a development levy system, increasing the flexibility of targeted rates, and strengthening the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act. 

    These changes all lead to our ultimate ambition: growth paying for growth. They help create a flexible funding and financing system to match our soon-to-be flexible planning system.

    Today, however, I want to focus on Pillar 1, and the work we are doing to increase development capacity and let our cities and regions grow.

    A COMPLICATED STARTING POINT

    When we came into government, we inherited a complicated legal landscape.

    The last government introduced a thing called National Policy Statement on Urban Development – or NPS-UD – in mid-2020. This is the legal mechanism that required councils to allow greater density around rapid transit stops, in CBDs and in metro centres.

    The NPS-UD is a good tool and Phil Twyford in particular deserves great credit for getting it through. I supported its introduction at the time and I continue to support it. And we’ve committed to strengthen it.

    Then in 2021 Parliament legislated for the Medium Density Residential Standards, known as the MDRS. These are the rules that require councils to allow the development of three homes up to three storeys on each site, without the need for resource consent.

    National campaigned on making the MDRS optional for councils, rather than mandatory. We also campaigned on requiring councils to live-zone enough housing capacity for thirty years of growth at any one time through housing growth targets that would be set by government. The intent was to give councils more choice about where growth occurred, not to stop it.

    When we came to Government, Councils across the country were in the middle of implementing expensive, long-running plan changes to adopt both the NPS-UD and the MDRS.

    Almost all councils have now completed these plan changes, including here in Wellington. I signed off on the new Wellington District Plan last year, which significantly raises development capacity. There are already developers taking advantage of the new liberalised rules.

    I tip my hat to the progressive majority on the Wellington Council who wrestled with the economically perverse and wrong-headed conclusions of the Independent Hearings Panel and zoned for more housing.

    The Wellington City Council rightly gets a bad rap for many different reasons. But on housing they got it right.

    The three councils who have not yet completed their plan changes are Auckland, Christchurch and Waimakariri.

    As I say, our original policy was to let councils opt-out of the MDRS laws (but not the NPS-UD). But the practical reality is that would require councils to go through yet another round of plan changes – and all of this with more fundamental changes coming to the RMA in 2026 anyway. 

    In 2026 Parliament will legislate for completely new planning laws, due to take effect in 2027 to align with councils’ new Long Term Plans.

    It seemed ridiculous to make councils go through another round of plan changes in advance of a completely new system coming in 2027.

    We have therefore taken the pragmatic decision to remove the ability for councils to opt out of the MDRS and to work on bespoke legislative solutions for the two major cities – Auckland and Christchurch – who hadn’t yet finished their plan changes.

    SOLUTION FOR OUR BIGGEST CITIES 

    Auckland’s intensification plan change, PC78, has been underway since 2022. 

    Progress has been slow for many reasons, including the Auckland floods. The intensification plan change process does not allow Auckland to “downzone” certain areas due to natural hazard risk – only to “upzone” them – and the Council asked the government to fix this problem. 

    So we have agreed to allow Auckland to withdraw PC78. The legal mechanism for this is a RMA Amendment Bill currently before Parliament and recently reported back from the Environment Committee.

    We’ve taken two key steps to ensure development capacity is still improved in Auckland. 

    First, we directed Auckland Council to immediately bring forward decisions on the well-progressed parts of PC78 that related specially to the city centre. The Council met this requirement, finalising this part of their plan change on 22 May. 

    The Auckland CBD plan could go a lot further in my view. It is a real missed opportunity and in due course the council is going to have to have another look at it, particularly around the viewshafts which eviscerate hundreds of millions of dollars of economic value.

    Second, the law will require Auckland Council to progress a brand-new plan change urgently, notifying by 10 October this year.

    This new plan change lets Auckland Council address natural hazard risks and allows for more development capacity for housing and businesses. 

    Crucially, it directs that this plan change must enable the same or more capacity as PC78 did. We’re also requiring greater density around three key stations that will benefit from City Rail Link – Mount Eden, Kingsland, and Morningside.

    This ensures that housing capacity increases in Auckland, and that we make the most of a once-in-a-generation infrastructure investment. 

    Thankfully, Christchurch’s solution is far simpler (although all of this is relative): they are able to withdraw their plan change, provided they allow for 30 years of housing growth at the same time. 

    ENDING THE CULTURE OF NO

    With Auckland and Christchurch in the process of being sorted, and other councils – including Wellington – having completed their housing plan changes, the rules are now largely locked in until our new planning system takes over. 

    This is largely a good thing. Either the MDRS, or the capacity it unlocks, is in place across the country. That represents hundreds of thousands of additional potential homes for the coming years.

    The NPS-UD has now also been implemented nationwide, ensuring that growth will be clustered around public transit hubs and key urban centres. This means shaping our cities to reflect the way that Kiwis actually live.

    These are big, world-leading, reforms. They’re not perfect, but they are progress – and we shouldn’t take that lightly.

    I’m proud that these reforms are basically supported in a bipartisan way across Parliament. 

    National started the Auckland process with the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2016, following Auckland local government reform in 2010. The Unitary Plan has been closely studied internationally and the evidence is clear that rents are lower in Auckland because of the AUP.

    World-leading reform is exactly what we need to fix a world-leading housing crisis. We need to get as close to perfect as possible.

    That brings me to local government.

    It is an inarguable, and sometimes uncomfortable, fact that local government has been one of the largest barriers to housing growth in New Zealand.

    It took nearly five years for councils to implement the NPS-UD and MDRS. To say they dragged their feet is an understatement.

    In this time, Christchurch City Council just outright defied its legal obligations, voting to ignore the MDRS altogether. The last Government used RMA intervention powers just to make them do it. 

    The Council then spent years and a large amount of money arguing for special exemptions, ignoring clear directives from central government.

    Auckland Council wasn’t much better. Yes, the Auckland floods caused delays, and yes, the cancellation of Light Rail had an impact on their plan. But they used every excuse in the book to stall progress.

    I am convinced that if we had not come to an agreement on PC78, Auckland would still be dragging its heels — and many of these future homes would still be stuck on paper.

    Wellington isn’t perfect, either. It took the most high-profile district-plan lobbying campaign in New Zealand history, and some very committed councillors like Rebecca Matthews, to get a plan in place that actually supports and enables growth.

    Sadly, some council planning departments are basically a law unto themselves. I’ve lost count of the number of people who have told me awful stories about battles with council planners who try and micro-manage every little element of a housing development.

    Where the planter boxes on the driveway will be located. The architectural design of the new garage. Which way the living room is designed. Whether front doors should face the street in order to create “neighbourliness” or whether they should face away from the street in order to create “seclusion and privacy.” 

    We have had decades of local councils trying to make housing someone else’s problem, and we have a planning system that lets them get away with it.

    So, what do we do? We fix the system. 

    A streamlined planning system that requires housing growth – not just permits it – is the answer. Standardised zoning, housing growth targets, and less red tape solve this problem. 

    What they don’t solve, however, is the time it takes to reform our planning system. Councils won’t start work on their new plans under our new system until 2027. 

    And while we can’t legislate to fast-forward time, we can’t afford to wait either.

    That’s why today, I’m announcing that we will be adding a new tool to our growth toolkit.

    Cabinet has agreed to insert a new regulation making power into the RMA, allowing us to modify or remove provisions in local council plans if they negatively impact economic growth, development capacity, or employment.

    Prior to exercising this power, the Minister must carry out an investigation into the provision in question, consider its consistency with existing national direction under the RMA, and engage with the local authority.

    We believe this strikes the appropriate balance between the local and national interest.  

    This new regulation making power is only an interim measure, and is intended to only be in place until our new planning system comes into effect. We intend to add this as an amendment to the RMA Amendment Bill currently before Parliament, expected to pass into law in the next few weeks.

    We know that this is a significant step. But the RMA’s devolution of ultimate power to local authorities just has not worked. 

    New Zealanders elected us with a mandate to deliver economic growth and rebuild our economy, and that’s exactly what this new power will help do.

    We aren’t willing to let a single line in a district plan hold back millions or billions in economic potential. If local councillors don’t have the courage to make the tough decisions, we will do it for them.

    Let me be absolutely clear: the days of letting councils decide that growth shouldn’t happen at all are over.

    EMBEDDING A CULTURE OF YES

    That brings me back to Pillar One of our Going for Housing Growth plan, and our new planning system – designed to embed a culture of ‘yes’ in our country.

    Originally, we had intended to have these Pillar One reforms in place by now. As our plans for more fundamental, wider-reaching change to the RMA took shape, we started to realise that implementing Pillar One now would be, frankly, too difficult and too confusing. 

    So instead, we will be implementing Pillar One of Going for Housing Growth into the new planning system, where it will form the heart of our reforms to enable more housing.

    These will be crucial for creating a more flexible and responsive housing market. We will be establishing ambitious housing growth targets for councils, removing hard urban boundaries to provide more opportunities for development, and strengthening intensification provisions to make it easier to build new houses in the right places. 

    These reforms are bold and ambitious steps in solving our housing crisis. If done right, they will transform the New Zealand economy, and bring housing within reach of the next generation, like it was for ours. 

    However, the key here is doing this right. The devil is in the detail, and as I regularly say, the Government does not have a monopoly on good ideas. 

    Today I am announcing the release of our Going for Housing Growth discussion document, and the opening of consultation into these changes.

    This is the first time New Zealanders will be able to have their say on the Government’s new planning system and will help put flesh onto the bones of our plans to unlock more housing across the country. 

    I want to run through a few of the key proposals in this document, and the kind of questions we are keen to have answered.

    First, our housing growth targets will require councils to enable enough feasible and realistic development capacity to meet 30 years of demand.

    We propose that each relevant council will have its own target for its urban environment, therefore excluding rural areas. We are also asking whether councils be allowed to transfer a portion of the target between themselves by mutual agreement. 

    Unlike now, councils would be required to determine their target by using the same set of 30-year high-growth projections from Statistics NZ. Councils could choose to use a higher projection, but not lower. 

    We are also proposing a contingency margin of 20% on top of those projections. We would rather an oversupply of houses than an undersupply, and this margin protects against that. 

    This would see councils following a strictly controlled set of steps to calculate their own growth target, however, it would still leave the calculation up to them. We are especially keen to hear feedback on whether this is the right approach, or whether central government should determine each council’s growth target instead.

    Standardised zoning in the new planning system is one key mechanism we will use to strengthen and embed these Housing Growth Targets. 

    Standardised zoning essentially turns plan making into a ‘paint-by-numbers’ exercise for councils. We will have a range of pre-designed zones for councils to use – like CBD zones, medium density zones, or single house zones. We set the technical requirements of each zone, but councils chose where to apply them. 

    This approach poses huge opportunities for Housing Growth Targets, making them more impactful, easier to implement, and more transparent.

    Right now, councils spend many months and thousands of dollars modelling capacity in their plans. With standardised zones, there are opportunities to assign clear capacity assumptions for each zone. With standardised technical rules, we can standardise capacity modelling as well. We may set these capacity assumptions centrally, for example, by saying the standardised medium density zone allows for 65 homes per hectare. 

    This approach saves costs, makes plan changes faster and simpler, ensuring that the additional housing capacity they bring is in place as quickly as possible.

    Housing growth targets will ultimately mean that a lot more land is zoned for housing and businesses. The trick is going to be ensuring infrastructure and services are brought on to these areas over-time, and in a way that is truly responsive to demand. 

    We are considering agile land-release mechanisms to bring development areas online quickly, without requiring a full plan change. To achieve this, plans could be required to specify triggers for release such as infrastructure availability, developing and agreeing a detailed development plan, or land price indicators.

    Now a lot goes into this. What should these triggers be? Does the land get automatically released if they are met? How could the land price indicators be calculated in real-time? 

    We’re also considering whether we might need to provide strengthened requirements for councils to be responsive to unanticipated or out-of-sequence development proposals, with less discretion for councils about what constitutes ‘significant’ development capacity.

    Cabinet has agreed to remove councils’ ability to impose rural-urban boundary lines in their planning documents. We’re proposing that the new resource management system is clear that councils are not able to include a policy, objective or rule that sets an urban limit or a rural-urban boundary line in their planning documents for the purposes of urban containment.

    Creating efficient land markets requires creating responsive land markets. These proposals are all highly technical, but if done properly, will deliver development-ready land for housing exactly when the economics is right. 

    That’s what Pillar 1 is all about – letting the economics drive development, rather than council planners. 

    This discussion document contains a range of other questions and proposals, including how we strengthen our existing intensification requirements along public transport corridors, how we measure walkable catchments, what we do with ‘special character’, and how we enable greater mixed-use in our cities through standardised zoning. Consultation opens today and will run until 17 August.

    CONCLUSION

    This discussion document is a critical step in shaping a planning system that finally puts housing supply, economic growth, and common sense at its core. 

    It asks big questions, because the stakes are big: Can we build a system that responds to need, not NIMBYs? One that treats enabling land use as an economic necessity, not a nice to have?

    We are not interested in tinkering. We are building a planning system where housing growth is not just allowed – it’s expected. Where councils are accountable for delivering capacity, not blocking it. 

    I encourage every council, planner, business, and Kiwi who cares about housing affordability and economic prosperity to engage in this consultation. 

    We are open to ideas—but we are not open to delay. 

    The time for excuses is over. The culture of “yes” starts now. Thank you. I will now take your questions. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: SPC Tornado Watch 429

    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.
    SEL9

    URGENT – IMMEDIATE BROADCAST REQUESTED
    Tornado Watch Number 429
    NWS Storm Prediction Center Norman OK
    340 PM CDT Tue Jun 17 2025

    The NWS Storm Prediction Center has issued a

    * Tornado Watch for portions of
    Southern Kansas
    Northern Oklahoma
    Northeast Texas Panhandle

    * Effective this Tuesday afternoon and evening from 340 PM until
    1000 PM CDT.

    * Primary threats include…
    A couple tornadoes possible
    Scattered damaging winds and isolated significant gusts to 75
    mph likely
    Scattered large hail and isolated very large hail events to 3
    inches in diameter likely

    SUMMARY…Thunderstorms are expected to rapidly develop this
    afternoon along an axis from the northeast Texas Panhandle into
    southeast Kansas. Supercell thunderstorms are expected with a risk
    of very large hail, damaging winds, and a few tornadoes.

    The tornado watch area is approximately along and 70 statute miles
    north and south of a line from 110 miles west southwest of Alva OK
    to 10 miles southeast of Chanute KS. For a complete depiction of the
    watch see the associated watch outline update (WOUS64 KWNS WOU9).

    PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS…

    REMEMBER…A Tornado Watch means conditions are favorable for
    tornadoes and 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.

    &&

    OTHER WATCH INFORMATION…CONTINUE…WW 428…

    AVIATION…Tornadoes and a few severe thunderstorms with hail
    surface and aloft to 3 inches. Extreme turbulence and surface wind
    gusts to 65 knots. A few cumulonimbi with maximum tops to 500. Mean
    storm motion vector 28030.

    …Hart

    SEL9

    URGENT – IMMEDIATE BROADCAST REQUESTED
    Tornado Watch Number 429
    NWS Storm Prediction Center Norman OK
    340 PM CDT Tue Jun 17 2025

    The NWS Storm Prediction Center has issued a

    * Tornado Watch for portions of
    Southern Kansas
    Northern Oklahoma
    Northeast Texas Panhandle

    * Effective this Tuesday afternoon and evening from 340 PM until
    1000 PM CDT.

    * Primary threats include…
    A couple tornadoes possible
    Scattered damaging winds and isolated significant gusts to 75
    mph likely
    Scattered large hail and isolated very large hail events to 3
    inches in diameter likely

    SUMMARY…Thunderstorms are expected to rapidly develop this
    afternoon along an axis from the northeast Texas Panhandle into
    southeast Kansas. Supercell thunderstorms are expected with a risk
    of very large hail, damaging winds, and a few tornadoes.

    The tornado watch area is approximately along and 70 statute miles
    north and south of a line from 110 miles west southwest of Alva OK
    to 10 miles southeast of Chanute KS. For a complete depiction of the
    watch see the associated watch outline update (WOUS64 KWNS WOU9).

    PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS…

    REMEMBER…A Tornado Watch means conditions are favorable for
    tornadoes and 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.

    &&

    OTHER WATCH INFORMATION…CONTINUE…WW 428…

    AVIATION…Tornadoes and a few severe thunderstorms with hail
    surface and aloft to 3 inches. Extreme turbulence and surface wind
    gusts to 65 knots. A few cumulonimbi with maximum tops to 500. Mean
    storm motion vector 28030.

    …Hart

    Note: The Aviation Watch (SAW) product is an approximation to the watch area. The actual watch is depicted by the shaded areas.
    SAW9
    WW 429 TORNADO KS OK TX 172040Z – 180300Z
    AXIS..70 STATUTE MILES NORTH AND SOUTH OF LINE..
    110WSW AVK/ALVA OK/ – 10SE CNU/CHANUTE KS/
    ..AVIATION COORDS.. 60NM N/S /32WSW MMB – 26NNW OSW/
    HAIL SURFACE AND ALOFT..3 INCHES. WIND GUSTS..65 KNOTS.
    MAX TOPS TO 500. MEAN STORM MOTION VECTOR 28030.

    LAT…LON 37160049 38589535 36559535 35130049

    THIS IS AN APPROXIMATION TO THE WATCH AREA. FOR A
    COMPLETE DEPICTION OF THE WATCH SEE WOUS64 KWNS
    FOR WOU9.

    Watch 429 Status Report Message has not been issued yet.

    Note:  Click for Complete Product Text.Tornadoes

    Probability of 2 or more tornadoes

    Mod (40%)

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

    Low (20%)

    Wind

    Probability of 10 or more severe wind events

    High (70%)

    Probability of 1 or more wind events > 65 knots

    High (70%)

    Hail

    Probability of 10 or more severe hail events

    High (70%)

    Probability of 1 or more hailstones > 2 inches

    Mod (60%)

    Combined Severe Hail/Wind

    Probability of 6 or more combined severe hail/wind events

    High (>95%)

    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 –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Tuberville Introduces Legislation to Restore Lethality in the U.S. Military

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Tommy Tuberville (Alabama)

    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) introduced the Restoring Lethality Act, which eliminates the existence of DEI-related requirements within the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Senator Tuberville has been leading the charge to eliminate Biden-era woke policies from the Pentagon and ensure the military is solely focused on lethality and readiness. Last year, Senator Tuberville successfully killed all DEI funding from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and this bill would ensure it stays dead.

    “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris treated the Pentagon like a trial run for their latest DEI initiatives,” said Senator Tuberville.“Thankfully, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth are working around the clock to eradicate this poisonous ideology from the military, but there’s still more to be done. We have to make sure zero taxpayer dollars go towards this divisive propaganda that distracts from the core mission of the military: to protect the security of the United States.”  

    MORE:

    Tuberville Fights for Alabama, Strengthens Military as NDAA Passes Committee

    Tuberville, Schmitt Introduce Legislation To Dismantle DEI

    Tuberville Supporting Elimination of DEI, Restoration of Lethality in Armed Forces

    Tuberville Introduces Bill to Boost American Manufacturing, Remove Woke DEI Requirements from CHIPS Act

    Tuberville Introduces Legislation to Protect Women’s Sports at Military Service Academies 

    Tuberville: “We need a military that is 100% focused on protecting our country and enhancing national security.”

    ICYMI: Tuberville op-ed: Pete Hegseth Isn’t the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

    Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: China, Central Asian countries agree to promote people-to-people exchanges

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    ASTANA, June 17 (Xinhua) — China and Central Asian countries have agreed to further facilitate people-to-people exchanges, a joint initiative to that effect was adopted on Tuesday.

    China and the five Central Asian countries – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – expressed their willingness to improve the connectivity of roads and railways, upgrade relevant infrastructure and supporting facilities, and create favorable conditions for the cross-border movement of people and goods.

    All parties expressed their intention to launch more direct flights between China and Central Asian countries, strengthen cooperation in the field of tourism, and launch the international cultural and tourist train “China – Central Asia”.

    The six countries intend to expand bilateral student exchanges and continue to establish and strengthen sister city ties at the provincial/regional and city levels.

    In addition, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have declared their readiness to accelerate the modernization of border checkpoint infrastructure. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: China, Central Asian Countries Committed to Strengthening Multilateral Trading System – Declaration

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

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

    ASTANA, June 17 (Xinhua) — China and Central Asian countries on Tuesday expressed their commitment to strengthening the multilateral trading system based on the rules of the World Trade Organization.

    Six countries – China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – expressed their commitment to this in the Astana Declaration issued following the 2nd China-Central Asia Summit.

    The parties agreed to maintain the conformity of international trade rules with the requirements of the times and to promote the liberalization and simplification of trade and investment procedures.

    The parties stressed the need to support open, inclusive, sustainable, resilient, diversified and reliable global supply chains.

    They also identified six priority areas for cooperation: unimpeded trade, industrial investment, connectivity, green resources, agricultural modernization and facilitating people-to-people exchanges. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: House Democrats Defend NIH Grants Against Trump Administration’s Unlawful Termination

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (8th District of New York)

    Washington, D.C. — Today, the Litigation and Response Task Force led 152 House Democrats in filing an amicus brief challenging the Trump Administration’s illegal and devastating cuts to life-saving medical research grants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The brief defends Congress’s Article I authority to appropriate federal funds and speaks up for every American who relies on crucial life-saving biomedical and public health research conducted at universities, medical schools, research hospitals, and other scientific institutions across the country. 

    House Democrats’ amicus brief was filed in the consolidated cases Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. NIH, Association of American Medical Colleges v. NIH, and Association of American Universities v. Department of Health and Human Services, all currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. These cases challenge the Trump Administration’s unlawful and unconstitutional efforts to reduce indirect cost reimbursements for projects funded by the NIH.

    In early February, the Trump Administration arbitrarily slashed the NIH reimbursement rate for indirect research costs. Without fair reimbursement for indirect costs, more than 300,000 scientists and researchers at 2,500 institutions that receive NIH funding will face devastating impacts, and Americans could be left without access to lifesaving and life-extending treatments. The ramifications would also ripple through global collaboration and the development of our future scientific leadership and workforce, limiting our ability to enhance health and reduce illness and disability in the future.

    The full brief is available HERE.  

    The effort was led by Task Force Co-Chair Joe Neguse and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Ranking Members of the Appropriations and Energy and Commerce Committees, Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Frank Pallone. 

    See what they had to say below: 

    “The unconstitutional decision by the Trump administration to gut the NIH should shock the conscience. Donald Trump and Elon Musk are illegally destroying our public health infrastructure and canceling research programs—including pediatric cancer research—in order to hand massive tax breaks to billionaires,” said Leader Hakeem Jeffries. “Congress appropriated these funds and only Congress has the power to claw them back. House Democrats will continue to push back on this blatant disregard of science and the Constitution, and I thank Reps. Neguse, Raskin, DeLauro and Pallone and the Rapid Response Task Force and Litigation Working Group for their leadership.”

    “The Trump Administration’s reckless and illegal cuts to NIH grants, funded through congressionally appropriated dollars, not only violate Congress’s Article I powers, but also represent an affront to Americans across the country who are left reeling without access to lifesaving and life-extending treatments. This directive has upended critical medical research at our nation’s leading labs, hospitals, research centers, and scientific institutions—and has immediate consequences, including canceled clinical trials and patients losing access to treatments,” said Assistant Democratic Leader Joe Neguse. “In filing this brief, House Democrats are pushing back against the harm being inflicted on everyday Americans and reinforcing the constitutional authority of Congress.”

    “Trump’s latest attack on science is dangerous, cruel, and unconstitutional,” said Ranking Member Jamie Raskin. “By slashing NIH grant funding appropriated by Congress, the Trump Administration is jeopardizing lifesaving research conducted by scientists across the country and all the patients who depend on it. He’s also trampling Congress’s clear constitutional authority over federal spending. As president, Trump’s job is to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress, not rewrite them and not impound them. Therefore, NIH funds must be delivered exactly as directed by Congress. I’m proud to join my colleagues in defending both the Constitution and the future of essential American biomedical progress.”

    “Once again, President Trump and OMB Director Russ Vought are acting in direct violation of the law. In this case, they are causing irreparable damage to ongoing research to develop cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, ALS, Diabetes, Mental Health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases, and other diseases and conditions affecting American families. The Trump Administration is stealing critical funds promised to scientific research institutions funded by the NIH, despite an explicit legal prohibition against this action. By taking an axe to our efforts to find cures to diseases and disorders that are tearing apart families across the country, President Trump and Russ Vought are risking lives and putting the United States on a path to decline,” said Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro. 

    “The Trump Administration’s NIH grant funding cuts are not only illegal, they’re also incredibly harmful to the American people,” said Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. “Stealing these funds that support research will further interrupt clinical trials and patient care, delay medical research for new cures and treatments, and undermine America’s scientific research institutions. Democrats are fighting to ensure this critical funding is restored and to protect Americans’ access to lifesaving treatment and innovations.”

    Background on the Litigation and Rapid Response Task Force:

    The Litigation and Rapid Response Task Force first took the unprecedented step of filing a trial court amicus brief to defend American consumers from predatory lenders and bad actors. They were successful in this case after a federal judge blocked efforts to dismantle the CFPB, citing the group’s argument multiple times throughout the 112-page ruling. The Task Force was also able to effectively prevent the Trump Administration from dismantling the Department of Education, filing another such brief that led to a federal court demanding the immediate rehiring of unlawfully terminated staff. House Democrats have so far filed nine amicus briefs in cases against Administration lawlessness. 

    For more information on House Democrats efforts to protect Americans against the unlawful actions of the Trump Administration, visit litigationandresponse.house.gov. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pingree, Murkowski, Whitehouse, and Moylan Reintroduce Legislation to Support Coastal Communities Impacted by Ocean Acidification

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (1st District of Maine)

    Today, U.S. Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and James Moylan (R-Guam), alongside Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), reintroduced the bipartisan, bicameral Coastal Communities Ocean Acidification Act. This legislation provides resources for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to collaborate with local and tribal entities to research and monitor ocean acidification. 

    “We’re seeing the effects of ocean acidification in real time—from threatening lobster populations in the Gulf of Maine to eroding coral reefs in tropical waters. We now know that parts of our oceans have reached dangerous acidification levels earlier than expected, threatening entire ecosystems.” said Congresswoman Pingree, ranking member of the House Appropriations Interior and Environment Subcommittee. “Coastal communities like those in Maine are on the frontlines of this crisis, and our bipartisan Coastal Communities Ocean Acidification Act ensures they won’t face it alone. This bill gives coastal communities the science, tools, and support they need to build resilience and protect ocean industries that support millions of jobs. I was proud that my colleagues in the House passed this crucial bill last Congress, it’s long past time Congress sends this bill to the President’s desk.”

    “As an island territory in the heart of the Pacific, Guam is on the front lines of climate and oceanic change. Ocean acidification threatens not just our marine ecosystems, but also our cultural traditions, local fisheries, and food security,” said Congressman Moylan. “This legislation is about giving coastal communities like ours the tools and partnerships we need to understand and respond to these growing challenges. I’m proud to co-lead this bipartisan effort to ensure a healthier ocean for future generations.”

    “The impacts of ocean acidification on our coastal communities cannot be understated, particularly on our blue economy,” said Senator Murkowski, Co-Chair of the Senate Oceans Caucus. “This legislation takes a holistic approach to understanding ocean acidification, encouraging experts from every walk of life to work together and ensure that our oceans stay healthy.” 

    “The oceans are in trouble.  Ocean acidification caused by carbon pollution is harming marine ecosystems and coastal industries like aquaculture,” said Senator Whitehouse, Co-Chair of the Senate Oceans Caucus. “Our bipartisan legislation will assist in monitoring changes to the oceans and help us better understand how to protect Rhode Island’s blue economy from acidifying waters.” 

    Our oceans play a critical role as a natural carbon sink, absorbing around a third of carbon dioxide emissions from human activities each year. As a result, global oceans have become more acidic by approximately 30% since the Industrial Revolution and could experience increases up to 150% by the end of the century—creating challenging growing conditions for marine organisms, particularly those with calcium carbonate shells. 

    This legislation would direct NOAA to collaborate with and support state, local, and tribal entities that are conducting or have completed ocean acidification vulnerability assessments. The bill strengthens partnerships between NOAA and a wide range of stakeholders involved in ocean acidification research, such as indigenous groups, coastal communities, state and local resource managers, fishery management councils and commissions, and the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS).

    The Coastal Communities Ocean Acidification Act passed the House in the 118th Congress. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Saying yes to housing growth

    Source: New Zealand Government

    New Zealanders have an opportunity to help shape the new planning system replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA) through public consultation on removing unnecessary barriers to housing growth, says Housing and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop.
    “New Zealand’s house prices are among the most expensive in the developed world – a direct result of our current planning system making it too hard for our cities to grow up and out.
    “Fixing our housing crisis involves fixing the fundamentals of our housing market – freeing up land for development and removing unnecessary planning barriers, improving infrastructure funding and financing to support urban growth, and providing incentives for communities and councils to support growth.
    “Next year we’ll replace the RMA with a new planning system that makes it easier to plan and deliver the housing and infrastructure New Zealand needs.
    “The new planning system is an enormous opportunity to create a planning system that enables and encourages housing growth.
    “Last year I announced the Government had committed to six major legislative changes to help free up land for housing and let our cities grow:

    The establishment of Housing Growth Targets for Tier 1 and 2 councils
    New rules making it easier for cities to expand outwards at the urban fringe
    A strengthening of the intensification provisions in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD)
    New rules requiring councils to enable a greater mixed-use zoning across our cities.
    The abolition of minimum floor area and balcony requirements
    New provisions making the Medium Density Residential Standards optional for councils.

    “The discussion document I’m releasing today provides further detail on how these changes will operate in practice, and how they’ll integrate into the government’s resource management reforms. Feedback through the consultation process will be used to shape the development of the new planning system.
    “The NPS-UD was a good starting point for strengthening housing growth in cities, but the government is committed to going further to help create competitive urban land markets and abundant development opportunities. The discussion document proposes a range of changes to strengthen the existing rules.
    “As I indicated last week, the government is no longer proposing to make the MDRS optional for councils. This is because most councils (with three exceptions) have already changed their plans to include the MDRS, and so it would be inefficient and a waste of time and money to make them potentially change their plans in 2025 and 2026 when the new resource management system will go live in 2027.
    “Bespoke legislative solutions have been designed for Auckland and Christchurch, reflected in the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill recently reported back to Parliament. In Auckland’s case, it allows the Council to withdraw their existing plan change (PC78) and replace it with a new one, which provides the same level of capacity (or greater) in PC78, as well as strengthened density provisions around City Rail Link stations.
    “The discussion document canvasses a range of important issues, including future development strategies and spatial planning, housing growth targets, responsive planning and rural-urban boundaries, intensification, enabling a mix of uses across urban environments and minimum floor area and balcony requirements.
    “I encourage New Zealanders to share their views on these important issues by making a submission.”
    Public consultation on the Going for Housing Growth discussion document opens today at www.hud.govt.nz/haveyoursay and will run until 17 August 2025. This is early non-statutory consultation and public feedback on will be used to shape the development of the new resource management system.

    Editor’s note: 

    A fact sheet on the Going for Housing Growth discussion document is attached.
    The Going for Housing Growth consultation is separate from the concurrent consultation on three packages of proposed changes to national direction. The national direction changes would come into effect under the existing RMA before transitioning into the new planning system while the Going for Housing Growth consultation is focused on shaping the new planning system.  

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Jason Anavitarte Elected Senate Majority Leader

    Source: US State of Georgia

    ATLANTA (June 17, 2025) — The Georgia Senate Republican Caucus today elected Senator Jason Anavitarte (R–Dallas) as Majority Leader of the Georgia State Senate. He will assume the role immediately, serving as the principal legislative strategist and floor leader for the Senate Republican Caucus heading into the remainder of the 2025–2026 legislative biennium.

    “I am deeply honored by the trust my colleagues have placed in me,” said Sen. Anavitarte. “The people of Georgia, and the 31st Senate District, elected a Republican majority to lead boldly, govern responsibly, and protect our values. I come from a blue-collar family, and I carry those roots with me every day. Hardworking Georgians across West Georgia and beyond are counting on us, and I intend to meet this moment with focus, discipline, and a commitment to improving lives across our state. As we move through the remainder of the legislative interim, I’m ready to get to work.”

    Anavitarte, who previously served as Majority Caucus Chair, brings years of leadership experience to the role. Since joining the Senate in 2021, he has championed legislation to expand school choice, strengthen public safety, support teachers, protect kids and lower taxes.

    A former member of both the Doraville City Council and the Paulding County Board of Education, Anavitarte made history early in his career as one of the youngest Hispanic officials elected in the state. He currently represents the 31st Senate District, which includes Paulding and Polk counties.

    # # # #

    Sen. Jason Anavitarte serves as Senate Majority Leader. He represents the 31st Senate District, which includes Polk County and a portion of Paulding County. He may be reached via email at Jason.Anavitarte@senate.ga.gov.

    For all media inquiries, please reach out to SenatePressInquiries@senate.ga.gov.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta: Environmental Justice Initiatives Remain Legal and Necessary

    Source: US State of California

    Today’s guidance provides clarity and affirms the legality and necessity of environmental justice initiatives in the face of the federal government’s attacks

    OAKLAND— California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 12 attorneys general in issuing a multistate guidance affirming the necessity and legality of environmental justice initiatives. The guidance clarifies that despite the Trump Administration’s recent efforts to mislabel and undermine these critical efforts, public and private entities can still lawfully engage in environmental justice work to ensure a healthy environment for all people to live, play, work, learn, and worship in.  

    “Making it harder for Americans to breathe safe air and drink clean water is not ‘making America great or healthy again.’ Yet, the Trump Administration continues to undermine protections aimed at helping every American, no matter their zip code, to breathe safe air, drink clean water, and live in a healthy environment,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I, alongside attorneys general nationwide, are making it crystal clear with today’s guidance that the Administration does not have unilateral legal authority to dismantle policies and laws that protect our communities. We assure the public – including local governments, community-based organizations, individuals, and businesses – that environmental justice initiatives remain lawful and critically important. At the California Department of Justice, we will continue to work with advocates, local leaders, and partners across the country to ensure that no community is left behind in our fight for a healthier, more just future.”

    Efforts to Advance Environmental Justice Remain Essential  

    Environmental justice – which has its roots in our country’s civil, economic, labor, and immigrants’ rights movements – aims to ensure that every person has equal access to clean air, clean water, safe and healthy food, a healthy and sustainable environment, and protection from the impacts of climate change.

    At the California Department of Justice, we believe that every Californian should have the opportunity to live in a healthy and safe environment. However, low-income communities and communities of color suffer disproportionate exposure to pollution and corresponding health impacts from that exposure. Due to the legacies of racial segregation, redlining, and disinvestment, persistent environmental and public health disparities are still prevalent today.

    These excessive environmental and public health burdens are also exacerbated by climate change, which is causing environmental dangers that lead to greater instability, economic hardship, and shortened life spans. Environmental justice initiatives aim to overcome these disparities, developing solutions to persistent harms and advancing public health, safety, well-being, and prosperity across communities. 

    Recent Federal Actions Do Not Impact the Legality of Environmental Justice Efforts 

    Since day one, the Trump Administration has issued Executive Orders and memoranda that aim to reverse course on environmental justice as a longstanding federal policy. The Administration has terminated environmental and climate justice programs and grants, discontinued environmental enforcement actions, and called for legal challenges to state environmental justice and climate laws. These actions distort the meaning and attempt to cast doubt on the legality of environmental justice work. 

    The President cannot change or dismantle laws passed by Congress, nor can his Executive Orders or agency memoranda alter the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution and federal and state laws. In fact, civil rights and environmental laws support public and private efforts to advance environmental justice, as does the U.S. Constitution. 

    Through this guidance, the States assure private and public entities that they stand ready to implement and enforce the nation’s laws to advance environmental justice and will continue working in collaboration with communities and organizations to support and defend these efforts across the country. 

    Joining Attorney General Bonta in issuing this guidance, which was co-led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York, are the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont. .  

    To learn more about the California Department of Justice’s environmental justice, health, and equity efforts, please click here.

    The Office of Community Awareness, Response and Engagement (CARE) invites you to join a virtual CARE Community Briefing featuring California Attorney General Rob Bonta about the  Environmental Justice Guidance. Please click here to register.  

    A copy of the guidance can be found here.

     

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: NATO Secretary General attends G7 Summit, welcomes Canada’s commitment to defence spending

    Source: NATO

    The NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, participated in the G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, on Tuesday (17 June 2025). The event was hosted by the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney.

    Speaking alongside Prime Minister Carney, Mr Rutte welcomed Canada’s decision to meet NATO’s defence investment target this year. “The fact that you decided to bring Canada to the 2% spending when it comes to NATO this year is really fantastic,” he said. He noted that, together with Portugal’s recent announcement to reach 2% of GDP this year, all NATO Allies will meet the benchmark in 2025. “That is really great news,” the Secretary General said.

    In addition to discussions with G7 leaders, Secretary General Rutte held a number of bilateral meetings ahead of the upcoming NATO Summit in The Hague, including with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese. 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: NATO Secretary General attends G7 Summit, welcomes Canada’s commitment to defence spending

    Source: NATO

    The NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, participated in the G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, on Tuesday (17 June 2025). The event was hosted by the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney.

    Speaking alongside Prime Minister Carney, Mr Rutte welcomed Canada’s decision to meet NATO’s defence investment target this year. “The fact that you decided to bring Canada to the 2% spending when it comes to NATO this year is really fantastic,” he said. He noted that, together with Portugal’s recent announcement to reach 2% of GDP this year, all NATO Allies will meet the benchmark in 2025. “That is really great news,” the Secretary General said.

    In addition to discussions with G7 leaders, Secretary General Rutte held a number of bilateral meetings ahead of the upcoming NATO Summit in The Hague, including with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese. 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warren, Sanders, Democrats Introduce No War Against Iran Act As Military Strikes Continue in the Middle East

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

    June 17, 2025

    Warren: “Congress decides when our country goes to war, not the President or the Netanyahu government.”

    Text of Bill (PDF)

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joined Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and colleagues in introducing the No War Against Iran Act, legislation to prohibit the use of federal funds for any use of military force in or against Iran absent specific Congressional authorization. Israel’s military strikes against Iran risk tanking diplomatic efforts that were already underway, further destabilizing the Middle East for its civilians, and drawing the United States into yet another military conflict. The bill contains an exception for self-defense as enshrined in the War Powers Act and applicable U.S. law.

    “The Constitution is clear: Congress decides when our country goes to war, not the President or the Netanyahu government,” said Senator Warren. “The Trump administration must prioritize de-escalation to prevent this spiraling into a war that jeopardizes U.S. troops and destabilizes the Middle East.”

    “Netanyahu’s reckless and illegal attacks violate international law and risk igniting a regional war. Congress must make it clear that the United States will not be dragged into Netanyahu’s war of choice,” Senator Sanders said. “Our Founding Fathers entrusted the power of war and peace exclusively to the people’s elected representatives in Congress, and it is imperative that we make clear that the President has no authority to embark on another costly war without explicit authorization by Congress.”

    “Another war in the Middle East could cost countless lives, waste trillions more dollars and lead to even more deaths, more conflict, and more displacement,” Senator Sanders continued. “I will do everything that I can as a Senator to defend the Constitution and prevent the U.S. from being drawn into another war.”

    “Instead of bringing wars to an end, Trump is facilitating them — leading to civilian deaths and threatening American lives in the region. Only the Congress has the constitutional power to declare war, and President Trump must not drag us further into this conflict without Congressional approval,” Senator Van Hollen said.

    “Our Constitution and laws give Congress, not the President, the exclusive powers to authorize military force and declare war. Congress must reassert that authority so that we are not drawn into a catastrophic regional war that would further imperil the safety of American citizens and forces, the stability of Middle East, and the lives of innocent civilians,” Senator Markey said.

    The legislation is co-sponsored by Senators Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.).

    “Our taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund another reckless, open-ended conflict instigated by Prime Minister Netanyahu,” Senator Welch said. “War has badly damaged this region. Millions of civilians face acute hunger and need lifesaving aid in Gaza right now. Netanyahu just upended U.S.-led negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program in favor of recklessly escalating tensions. Congress needs to listen to the American people, as our founders intended, before getting involved.”

    “As strikes between Israel and Iran continue, we need de-escalation and restraint from all sides. Trump’s reckless decision to abandon the JCPOA nuclear agreement, cheered on by Netanyahu, helped bring us to this dangerous moment. This bill makes clear: the President cannot launch another war in the Middle East without Congressional authorization. It’s long past time for Congress to reassert its constitutional role and prevent another disastrous conflict,” Senator Merkley said.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warren, Sanders, Democrats Introduce No War Against Iran Act As Military Strikes Continue in the Middle East

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

    June 17, 2025

    Warren: “Congress decides when our country goes to war, not the President or the Netanyahu government.”

    Text of Bill (PDF)

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joined Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and colleagues in introducing the No War Against Iran Act, legislation to prohibit the use of federal funds for any use of military force in or against Iran absent specific Congressional authorization. Israel’s military strikes against Iran risk tanking diplomatic efforts that were already underway, further destabilizing the Middle East for its civilians, and drawing the United States into yet another military conflict. The bill contains an exception for self-defense as enshrined in the War Powers Act and applicable U.S. law.

    “The Constitution is clear: Congress decides when our country goes to war, not the President or the Netanyahu government,” said Senator Warren. “The Trump administration must prioritize de-escalation to prevent this spiraling into a war that jeopardizes U.S. troops and destabilizes the Middle East.”

    “Netanyahu’s reckless and illegal attacks violate international law and risk igniting a regional war. Congress must make it clear that the United States will not be dragged into Netanyahu’s war of choice,” Senator Sanders said. “Our Founding Fathers entrusted the power of war and peace exclusively to the people’s elected representatives in Congress, and it is imperative that we make clear that the President has no authority to embark on another costly war without explicit authorization by Congress.”

    “Another war in the Middle East could cost countless lives, waste trillions more dollars and lead to even more deaths, more conflict, and more displacement,” Senator Sanders continued. “I will do everything that I can as a Senator to defend the Constitution and prevent the U.S. from being drawn into another war.”

    “Instead of bringing wars to an end, Trump is facilitating them — leading to civilian deaths and threatening American lives in the region. Only the Congress has the constitutional power to declare war, and President Trump must not drag us further into this conflict without Congressional approval,” Senator Van Hollen said.

    “Our Constitution and laws give Congress, not the President, the exclusive powers to authorize military force and declare war. Congress must reassert that authority so that we are not drawn into a catastrophic regional war that would further imperil the safety of American citizens and forces, the stability of Middle East, and the lives of innocent civilians,” Senator Markey said.

    The legislation is co-sponsored by Senators Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.).

    “Our taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund another reckless, open-ended conflict instigated by Prime Minister Netanyahu,” Senator Welch said. “War has badly damaged this region. Millions of civilians face acute hunger and need lifesaving aid in Gaza right now. Netanyahu just upended U.S.-led negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program in favor of recklessly escalating tensions. Congress needs to listen to the American people, as our founders intended, before getting involved.”

    “As strikes between Israel and Iran continue, we need de-escalation and restraint from all sides. Trump’s reckless decision to abandon the JCPOA nuclear agreement, cheered on by Netanyahu, helped bring us to this dangerous moment. This bill makes clear: the President cannot launch another war in the Middle East without Congressional authorization. It’s long past time for Congress to reassert its constitutional role and prevent another disastrous conflict,” Senator Merkley said.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warren to Hegseth: Gutting Military Weapons Testing Office Could Violate the Law, “Will Cost Service Members’ Lives and Waste Taxpayer Dollars”

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

    June 17, 2025

    “This decision jeopardizes the safety and military effectiveness of every weapons program overseen by [the weapons testing office].”

    “Your reported refusal to publicly release or provide Congress any study justifying this change raises questions about whether such a study even exists.” 

    Text of Letter (PDF)

    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Defense (DoD), Pete Hegseth, criticizing his drastic cuts to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) Office, which provides oversight and testing of weapons to ensure they will be safe to operate and effective in combat. 

    “For over 40 years this office has provided critical oversight over U.S. weapons programs…I urge you to reverse this decision, which will cost service members’ lives and waste taxpayer dollars, immediately,” said Senator Warren. 

    The independent testing office was created in response to concerns that the military services were failing to adequately test weapons and that Congress was not receiving the information necessary to conduct oversight over weapons programs. In May 2025, Secretary Hegseth issued a memo directing DOT&E to “immediately eliminate any non-statutory” functions of the office, reducing the office’s staff by 74 percent and slashing its budget by almost 80 percent. 

    “I am concerned that these reductions would violate the law, cutting so deep that the office would no longer be able to meet its statutory functions,” wrote Senator Warren. 

    Since its creation, DOT&E has made sure that urgently needed equipment is safe and effective. At the beginning of the Afghan surge, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said “75 percent of all casualties were due to” improvised explosive devices (IEDs). DOT&E’s testing of Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles helped save more than 2,000 American lives. In another instance, DOT&E’s testing revealed a defect in the Marine Corps’ Enhanced Combat Helmet “presented a serious risk of injury or death” and risks of snapping the necks of lightweight pilots ejecting from an F-35.

    The results of ignoring or forgoing DOT&E’s testing can be deadly for service members. In 2000, DOT&E found that the V-22 Osprey “was not operationally suitable, primarily because of reliability, maintainability, availability, human factors, and interoperability issues.” Despite the office’s warning, the Pentagon continued to fly the aircraft, which eventually killed 64 service members, including two Massachusetts constituents, Air Force Staff Sergeant Jake Galliher and Marine Corps Captain Ross A. Reynolds.

    Past testing by DOT&E has also revealed that Army battlefield communications were vulnerable to hacking and that DoD’s “cyber posture remains at risk.” 

    “If the cuts are made, it remains unclear whether decisions about which programs to prioritize for oversight will be made based on objective criteria or by program managers who would hide significant program failures from Congress and the public,” Senator Warren continued. 

    To date, Secretary Hegseth has not publicly released or provided any study or review justifying the cuts to DOT&E, raising concerns about whether such a study exists.  

    Senator Warren asked Secretary Hegseth to provide the following by July 2, 2025: any study or analyses justifying the cuts, a list of DOT&E’s current oversight list, whether the office will continue its cyber assessment program, whether the Golden Dome project should be excluded from oversight, and whether the Pentagon required DOT&E staff to meet with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 

    MIL OSI USA News –