NewzIntel.com

Category: Fisheries

  • MIL-OSI Australia: A joint mine shaft rescue for Labrador ted

    Source:

    Credit: Ethan Brown, Trentham Fire Brigade

    A team effort in the west today (2 June) saw local Trentham Fire Brigade members work with CFA’s Oscar 1 rescue team to safely rescue a dog from an eight-metre-deep mine shaft.

    Having wandered off from their owners’ property on Thursday afternoon, Labradoodle Penny and Labrador Ted were found on Pronk Track in Trentham at around 11.43am this morning, with Penny above the mine and Ted sadly within it.   

    While extensive social media posts were placed online to help locate the dogs over the weekend, and hopeful sounds of barking were heard in the distance by neighbours, the pair were still unable to be located.

    Trentham Fire Brigade Captain David Wheeldon said it wasn’t until today that the neighbours fortunately crossed paths with Penny and Ted on their walk and called Triple Zero.

    “When we arrived, as you would expect, Penny was quite agitated, but luckily one of our firefighters knew the owners because they lived next door to them,” David said.

    “We were able to get a hold of them to come down before Bendigo’s Oscar 1 crew started the rescue process.

    “Throughout the morning, we were providing Ted with plenty of food and water.

    “The members of Oscar 1 descended down the 8m shaft to safely extricate Ted and hand him back into the arms of his owners at around 2.53pm, happy, healthy and well.”

    While on scene Trentham Fire Brigade members worked with Forest Fire Management Victoria to track their location with pink ribbon and red taped a number of open mine shafts nearby to prevent future incidents.

    Hepburn Shire Council were also on scene for wellbeing support.

    • Credit: Ethan Brown, Trentham Fire Brigade
    • Credit: Ethan Brown, Trentham Fire Brigade
    • Credit: Ethan Brown, Trentham Fire Brigade
    • Credit: Ethan Brown, Trentham Fire Brigade
    Submitted by CFA media

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Eugene Doyle: Writing in the time of the Gaza genocide

    COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

    I want to share a writer’s journey — of living and writing through the Genocide.  Where I live and how I live could not be further from the horror playing out in Gaza and, increasingly, on the West Bank.

    Yet, because my country provides military, intelligence and diplomatic support to Israel and the US, I feel compelled to answer the call to support Palestine by doing the one thing I know best: writing.

    I live in a paradise that supports genocide
     I am one of the blessed of the earth. I’m surrounded by similarly fortunate people. I live in a heart-stoppingly beautiful bay.

    Even in winter I swim in the marine reserve across the road from our house.  Seals, Orca, all sorts of fish, octopus, penguins and countless other marine life so often draw me from my desk towards the rocky shore.  My home is on the Wild South Coast of Wellington. Every few days our local Whatsapp group fires a message, for example:  “Big pod of dolphins heading into the bay!”

    I live in Aotearoa New Zealand, a country that, in the main, is yawning its way through a genocide and this causes me daily frustration and pain.  It drives me back to the keyboard.

    I am surrounded by good friends and suffer no fears for my security. I am materially comfortable and well-fed. I love being a writer. Who could ask for more?

    I write, on average, a 1200-word article per week. It’s a seven days a week task and most of my writing time is spent reading, scouring news sites from around the world, note-taking, fact-checking, fretting, talking to people and thinking about the story that will emerge, always so different from my starting concept.

    I’m in regular contact with historians, ex-diplomats, geopolitical analysts, writers and activists from around the world and count myself fortunate to know these exceptional people.

    This article is different, simpler; it is personal — one person’s experience of writing from the far periphery of the conflict.

    I don’t want to live in a country that turns a blind or a sleep-laden eye to one of the great crimes against humanity. I have come to the hurtful realisation that I have a very different worldview from most people I know and from most people I thought I knew.

    Fortunately, I have old friends who share in this struggle and I have made many new friends here in New Zealand and across the world who follow their own burning hearts and work every day to challenge the role our governments play in supporting Israel to destroy the lives of millions of innocent people. To me, these people — and above all the Palestinian people in their steadfast resistance — are the heroes who fuel my life.

    Writing is fighting
     Most of us have multiple demands on our time; three of my good writer friends are grappling with cancer, another lost his job for challenging the official line and now must work long hours in a menial day job to keep the family afloat. Despite these challenges they all head to the keyboard to continue the struggle.  Writing is fighting.

    There’s so little we can all do but, as Māori people say: “ahakoa he iti, he pounamu” – it may only be a little but every bit counts, every bit is as precious as jade.

    That sentiment is how movements for change have been built – anti-Vietnam war, anti-nuclear, anti-Apartheid — all of them pro-humanity, all of them about standing with the victims not with the oppressors, nor on the sideline muttering platitudes and excuses.  As another writer said: “Washing one’s hands of the struggle between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” (Paolo Friere)  Back to the keyboard.

    My life until October 7th was more focussed on environmental issues, community organisation and water politics.  I had ceased being “a writer” years ago.

    One day in October 2023 I was in the kitchen, ranting about what was being done to the Palestinians and what was obviously about to be done to the Palestinians: genocide.  My emotions were high because I had had a deeply unpleasant exchange with a good friend of mine on the golf course (yes, I play golf). He told me that the people of Gaza deserved to be collectively punished for the Hamas attack of October 7th.

    I had angrily shot back at him, correctly but not diplomatically, that this put him shoulder-to-shoulder with the Nazis and all those who imposed collective punishment on civilian populations.  My wife, to her credit, had heard enough: “Get upstairs and write an article!  You have to start writing!”

    It changed my life. She was right, of course.  Impotent rage and parlour-room speeches achieve nothing. Writing is fighting.

    ’40 beheaded babies survived the Hamas attack’
     My first article “40 Beheaded Babies Survived the Hamas Attack” was a warning drawn from history about narratives and what the Americans and Israelis were really softening the ground for. Since then I have had about 70 articles published, all in Australia and New Zealand, some in China, the USA, throughout Asia Pacific, Europe and on all sorts of email databases, including those sent out by the exemplary Ambassador Chas Freeman in the US and another by my good friend and human rights lawyer J V Whitbeck in Paris.

    All my articles are on my own site solidarity.co.nz.

    As with historians, part of a writer’s job is to spot patterns and recurrent themes in stories, to detect lies and expose deeper agendas in the official narratives.  The mainstream media is surprisingly bad at this.  Or chooses to be.

    Just like the Incubator Babies story in Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in Vietnam, reaching right back to the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana in 1898, propaganda is often used as a prelude to atrocities.  The blizzard of lies after October 7th were designed to be-monster the Palestinians and prepare the ground for what would obviously follow.

    The narrative of beheaded babies promoted by world leaders, including President Biden, was powerfully amplified by our mainstream media; journalists at the highest level of the trade spread the lies.

    I have to tell you, it was frightening in October 2023 to challenge these narratives.  Every day I pored through the Israeli news site Ha’aretz for updates. Eventually the narrative fell apart — but by then the damage was done. Thousands of real babies had been murdered by the Israelis.

    Never before have so many of my fellow writers been killedFollowing events in Palestine closely, it still comes as a shock when a journalist I have read, seen, heard is suddenly killed by the Israelis. This has happened several times. When it does I take a coffee and walk up the ridiculously steep track behind my house and sit high above the bay on a bench seat I built (badly).

    That bench is my “top office” where I like to chew thoughts in my mind as I see the cold waves break on the brown rocks below.  High up there I feel detached and better able to ask and answer the questions I need to process in my writing.

    Why does our media pay little attention to the killing of so many fellow writers?  Why don’t they call out the Israelis for having killed more journalists than any military machine in history? Why the silence around Israel’s  “Where’s Daddy?” killing programme that has silenced so many Palestinian journalists and doctors by tracking their mobile phones and striking with a missile just when they arrive back home to their families?  Why does “the world’s most moral army” commit such ugly crimes? Where’s the solidarity with our fellow journalists?

    Is it because their skin is mainly dark?  Is that why, according to Radio New Zealand’s own report on its Gaza coverage, New Zealanders have more in common with Israelis than we do with Palestinians? RNZ refers to this as our “proximity” to Israelis. They’re right, of course: by failing to shoulder our positive duty to act decisively against Israel and the US we show that we share values with people committing genocide.

    Is this why stories about our own region — Kanaky New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, the Marshall Islands and so on, get so little coverage? I have heard many times the immense frustration of journalists I know who work on Pacific issues. The answer is simple: we have greater “proximity” to Benjamin Netanyahu than we do to the Polynesians or Melanesians in our own backyard. Really?

    Such questions need answers. Back to the keyboard.

    Solidarity
     I try not to permit myself despair. It’s a privilege we shouldn’t allow ourselves while our government supports the genocide.  Sometimes that’s hard.

    There’s a photo I’ve seen of a Palestinian mother holding her daughter that haunts me.  In traditional thobe, her head covered by her simple robe, she could easily be Mary, mother of Jesus. She stares straight at the camera. Her expression is hard to read. Shock? Disbelief? Wounded humanity?  Blood flows from below her eyes and stains her cheek and chin. Her forehead is blackened, probably from an explosive blast. She holds her child, a girl of perhaps 10, also damaged and blackened from the Israeli attack.  The child is asleep or unconscious; I can’t tell which.  The mother holds her as lovingly, as poignantly, as Mary did to Jesus when he came down from the cross.  La Pietà in Gaza.

    Why do some of us care less about this pair? Where is our humanity that we can let this happen day after day until the last syllable of our sickening rhetoric that somehow we in the West are morally superior has been vomited out.

    I’ll give the last word to another writer:

    “Verily I say unto you, in as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

    Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: The most interesting astronomical phenomena of the summer of 2025, visible in Novosibirsk

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: Novosibirsk State University – Novosibirsk State University –

    Summertime for astronomy at the latitude of Novosibirsk, especially the month before and after the summer solstice on June 21, is a period of calm, since the nights are too light and short, so the opportunities for observing interesting astronomical phenomena are reduced. And only in August, with the return of dark and longer nights, astronomical observations come alive again.

    However, it is during the brightest nights that there is a good opportunity to observe noctilucent clouds. This is not a completely astronomical phenomenon, since it occurs in the Earth’s atmosphere, but bright noctilucent clouds are a good object for summer night observations and filming. They appear differently on different nights, sometimes they are practically invisible, and sometimes very large and bright fields of “silver” are visible. It is impossible to say in advance when they will be clearly visible, but it is definitely worth observing such a phenomenon, especially for those who have not seen them before.

    August 10. Moon occultation of the star Deneb Algedi (Delta Capricornus). This is a fairly bright star (magnitude 2.9), so its occultation should be quite visible in binoculars or a telescope. It is interesting that for Novosibirsk this occultation is tangential, i.e. the Moon will cover the star with the very edge of its disk. Since the lunar disk is not perfectly flat due to the presence of mountains on the Moon, then during tangential occultations multiple occultations and emergences of the star from behind the lunar disk at the beginning and end of the occultation can be observed. For Novosibirsk, the occultation parameters are as follows: beginning at 04:07:52, altitude 14°, end at 04:25:43, altitude 13°.

    August 12-13. Perseid meteor shower peak. One of the so-called “big three” showers, that is, one of the three most active annual meteor showers, the peak of which occurs on August 12-13. At this time, its activity reaches approximately 100 meteors per hour, if you observe them outside the city, under a dark sky. However, this year during the Perseid maximum, the bright Moon will be shining in the sky, so even outside the city, the sky will be heavily illuminated by it, which will significantly worsen the ability to observe the shower and reduce the number of meteors observed. Nevertheless, the activity of the Perseids is such that their observation can be recommended even with lunar illumination, especially since they can produce very bright meteors and even fireballs.

    The Perseid radiant is located in the constellation Perseus, which is where the shower gets its name. The radiant is the point in the sky from which the shower’s meteors fly out. To simplify, we can say that the Perseid meteors fly out of the constellation Perseus. The shower’s radiant is located quite high above the horizon throughout the dark time of day. During the maximum, this is approximately from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. However, the height of the radiant during this time increases from approximately 30 to 60 degrees, so as the night progresses, the conditions for observing the Perseids and the number of their meteors increase.

    At the same time, in the pre-dawn hours before sunrise, around 4 a.m., you will be able to see two bright “stars” low above the northeastern horizon – this is what the conjunction of the two brightest planets in the earth’s sky – Jupiter and Venus – will look like.

    August 16-17. Occultation of the Pleiades by the Moon. The series of occultations of the Pleiades star cluster by the Earth’s satellite, which occurs once every 18 years, continues. The period of 18 years is equal to the duration of the lunar saros (draconic period), which is caused by the precession of the lunar orbit. In other words, this is the period of precession of the Moon’s orbit. The Pleiades cluster is located in the sky slightly above the ecliptic, however, due to the precession and the tilt of the lunar orbit of about 5 degrees, the Moon in its visible movement across the sky periodically (every 18 years) “reaches” the Pleiades and causes a series of occultations of the cluster.

    At the latitude of Novosibirsk, the current series of occultations began in mid-2024 and will end in March 2028. Occultations occur approximately once a month (more precisely, every 29 days, which corresponds to the sidereal period of the Moon). However, not every occultation is visible in Novosibirsk. For example, in the summer of 2025, of the three occultations of the Pleiades, only one will be visible – on August 16-17.

    To observe this occultation (or rather, a group of occultations), you need to use binoculars or a telescope. In its orbit around the Earth, the Moon will pass in front of the Pleiades stars and will cover them from an observer on Earth for some time. Through binoculars or a telescope, you will be able to see the Moon gradually approaching various stars of the cluster, then at some point they will disappear behind the lunar disk, and after some time they will reappear on the other side. Unfortunately, in this case, the Moon’s actual occultations of the Pleiades stars will occur at a very low altitude above the horizon, approximately from 23 to 00 hours, but later, when the altitude of the Moon and the cluster becomes higher, approximately from 1 to 2 hours, the Moon will not have time to move far from the cluster, which will look good in binoculars or a telescope next to the Moon.

    Here are the parameters of coverage of the brightest stars of the Pleiades for Novosibirsk:

    Alcyone. Beginning before sunrise, ending at 23:33:43, altitude 4°.

    Merope. Beginning before sunrise, ending at 23:07:28, altitude 1°.

    Atlas. Start at 23:20:07, altitude 2°, end at 00:02:38, altitude 7°)

     

    Explanation: Usually, various astronomical phenomena can be observed over a more or less large area, and depending on what kind of event we are talking about, they can be visible, for example, in different regions of Siberia or Russia as a whole, or in the entire northern or eastern hemisphere, or even around the world. This review provides information about what remarkable, unusual and interesting astronomical phenomena can be observed in Novosibirsk and its environs in the summer of 2025.

    It may well turn out that Novosibirsk will not be the optimal place for observing any of the phenomena indicated in the review, and in other points on our planet this phenomenon will be better visible, however, the circumstances of visibility are given specifically for Novosibirsk.

     

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reps. Garamendi, Thompson Demand Answers from Pentagon Over Plans to Use Travis AFB as Deportation Center

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Garamendi – Representing California’s 3rd Congressional District

    WASHINGTON, DC— This week, U.S. Representatives John Garamendi (D-CA-08) and Mike Thompson (D-CA-04) sent a joint letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth following reports that the Trump Administration is considering Travis Air Force Base as an immigration detention facility:

    “It’s outrageous and inappropriate for the Trump Administration to use Travis Air Force Base as an immigration detention facility. Converting Travis into an immigration facility would undermine its vital national security mission. Travis Air Force Base has long been known as the ‘Gateway to the Pacific’ because it plays a crucial role in our national security by providing transportation for personnel and materiel around the world, particularly in support to Ukraine.” said the Representatives.

    “Unfortunately, this is not the President’s first attempt to inappropriately utilize Travis Air Force Base, hampering its critical mission. In February we uncovered that Trump was using Travis’s military aircraft to transport undocumented individuals at three times the cost of commercial flights. Later that month, we were able to stop his attempt to send trained medical personnel to the proposed migrant detention camp in Guantanamo Bay. Now, the President wants to turn Travis into a mass deportation center. All these instances compromise our national security and are simply absurd.

    “We are deeply alarmed by Trump’s blatant abuse of presidential power and his indifference to the rule of law. His utter disregard for the Posse Comitatus Act, which explicitly prohibits using active-duty military personnel for domestic law enforcement functions, is gravely concerning.

    “We will continue Congress’s oversight role and work to ensure the American people understand the unlawful, wasteful, and dangerous path Trump is pursuing.”

    This letter is the latest in a series of actions by Rep. Garamendi and Rep. Thompson to hold the Trump Administration accountable for misusing military resources in immigration enforcement.

    In January, Rep. Garamendi’s office sent a letter demanding answers from the Department of Defense regarding the use of C-17s and C-130s from Travis Air Force Base to deport undocumented immigrants. 

    In February, Rep. Garamendi followed up with another letter pressing the Trump Administration over plans to deploy medical professionals to a proposed migrant detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. The Department of Defense recently responded to that inquiry, but Rep. Garamendi’s office found the response inadequate.

    Read the full letter here and below.

    Pete Hegseth
    Secretary of Defense
    Office of the Secretary of Defense 
    1000 Defense Pentagon 
    Washington, DC 20301 

    Dear Secretary Hegseth, 

    We are deeply frustrated and gravely concerned by recent reports regarding the proposed use of Travis Air Force Base (AFB) as a migrant detention site. In our previous correspondence, we requested detailed assessments on the impact of this plan, including its effects on military resources, infrastructure, ongoing construction projects, and overall readiness. To date, these critical details remain unclear.

    While the federal government must address immigration challenges with humane and practical solutions, utilizing a military installation for civilian law enforcement and detention operations raises significant concerns about the misuse of military resources, operational readiness, and national security. The decision to use Travis AFB as a migrant detention center would both constitute a dangerous militarization of immigration enforcement and unnecessarily degrade military readiness.

    Travis AFB plays a critical role in national security and is responsible for the global transportation of personnel and material. Whether providing aid to Ukraine or transporting personnel and equipment into the Pacific, Travis AFB must maintain its readiness to respond to global crises.

    Additionally, military personnel’s involvement in civilian detention and law enforcement contradicts established legal frameworks, including the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military engagement in civilian law enforcement. Assigning resources toward immigration enforcement risks blurring this crucial distinction and setting a concerning precedent for the use of military installations for purposes beyond their intended scope.

    We demand answers from the Department of Defense to the following inquiries, no later than 30 days after receipt:

    1. Has the Department assessed the potential impact on Travis AFB’s infrastructure, specifically regarding water and energy, should a detention site be established at the base?
    2. How will diverting space and resources for a detention center at Travis AFB impact ongoing or future operations?
    3. How many migrants does the Department expect to detain at Travis AFB?
    4. Does the Department plan to reassign military personnel at Travis AFB to assist in detention operations?
    5. How will the Department ensure military personnel are not performing law enforcement activities at this detention center?
    6. What authorized and appropriated funds are being diverted to build and maintain this detention center?

    We urge you to provide full transparency on how this decision will affect Travis AFB and to reconsider any action that might compromise military readiness and interfere with ongoing or future operations.

     ###

     

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Palmer Delivers Opening Statement at Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Hearing on Critical Minerals Supply Chain

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled Examining Ways to Enhance Our Critical Mineral Supply Chains.

    Subcommittee Chairman Palmer’s opening statement as prepared for delivery:

     

    “Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘Examining Ways to Enhance Our Domestic Mineral Supply Chains.’

    “Today’s hearing addresses the crucial challenge that the U.S. is facing—how to decouple and derisk ourselves from China and other foreign adversaries and build critical mineral supply chains within the U.S. Our country has been blessed with abundant natural resources and the world-changing technology needed to harness those resources. Unfortunately, however, we have become over reliant on other nations to supply and process critical minerals. Today’s hearing is an opportunity to examine how to increase capacity and resilience in American critical mineral supply chains again.

    “Critical minerals are used in items we use every day like smart phones, computer hard drives, televisions, batteries, and lightbulbs. They are also used in elements of our electrical grid and have defense applications.

    “The U.S. used to be the leading producer and refiner of many critical minerals, including rare earth elements. By the late 1990s, however, most of this industry dissolved and moved overseas. According to a review in the United States Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024, the U.S. was 100 percent import reliant for 12 of the 50 critical minerals on the 2022 critical minerals list and more than 50 percent import reliant for an additional 29.

    “This predicament we find ourselves in is not a new problem, but a problem that has been many years in the making. So how did we get here? It is a combination of things—including burdensome permitting and other regulations, uncertainty in commodity pricing, market manipulation, and an increasingly litigious society. This has made our domestic environment unattractive to investors and companies as a result. For example, getting domestic processing and refining facilities up and running is an extremely long process—it can take 10 to 20 years for new processing plants and smelters to become operational. That is in addition to the lengthy mine development process in the U.S., which is the second-longest mine development timeline in the world. Because of this burdensome red tape, companies are not incentivized to invest domestically, so instead they invest abroad.

    “Moreover, even when U.S. companies operate mines in the U.S., the hesitancy to invest in domestic processing and refining facilities has put us in a position where our foreign adversaries monopolize other parts of the supply chain. For example, in 2019, one rare earth mine in the U.S. sent 98 percent of its raw materials to China because the U.S. lacked the capacity to process those minerals domestically. As a result, we must import our own product back from China after it is processed, but China’s recent export bans on several rare earth elements critical to the U.S. make this nearly impossible.

    “I cannot convey the seriousness of this issue enough. This is an economic issue and an issue of national security. We as a nation must ensure that we have access to these materials and the ability to process them without reliance on foreign adversaries, including China.

    “I want to applaud President Trump for declaring a national energy emergency on day one of his presidency, emphasizing that the U.S.’s identification, production, and refining of critical minerals are inadequate to meet domestic needs. Since then, President Trump has signed several executive orders related to critical minerals—including ordering immediate measures to increase American mineral production. We look forward to working with the Trump Administration on the mission to increase the capacity and resilience of domestic critical mineral supply chains.

    “I also want to thank our witnesses for joining us today to share their expertise and guide our discussion about the challenges in building domestic critical mineral supply chains and the opportunities we have to improve our domestic supply chains moving forward.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Speech: ACT Celebration Brunch

    Source: ACT Party

    Speech
    ACT Leader David Seymour
    Sunday 1 June, 2025
    ACT New Zealand Celebration Brunch

    Intro

    “It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men and woman.”

    That was Sam Adams, one of the United States’ founding fathers. So many people here today, and some who sadly couldn’t be, fit Sam Adams’ description:

    I know one or two here are, occasionally, irate.

    To get this far, we’ve had to be tireless.

    I suspect we’ll always be a minority, but we succeed by setting brushfires in people’s minds.

    Human freedom, to do what you like if you don’t harm others, is the only thing truly worth fighting for. Only when that principle prevails can we turn our efforts on fighting problems in the natural world, instead of each other.

    This is no swansong, just a little rest before the next climb, perhaps the next setback, we’ve had lots of both, and we’ll have lots more.

    Today’s an opportunity to thank you for all your efforts setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of New Zealanders, and recommit ourselves to the mission of promoting a free society.

    Challenges I’ve faced and people who’ve helped/what I’ve learned from them

    Now, it hasn’t always been easy. If I had to pick a theme song for the last ten years, it could be one of Mark Knopfler. The Scaffolder’s Wife. Mark always writes with great empathy for the struggling.

    “In the wicked old days, when we went it alone. Kept the company goin,’ on a wing and a prayer.”

    Those words really stick with me, because sum up my first six years of leading ACT.

    In fact, it hasn’t just been a bit difficult. Most of the time it seemed bloody impossible.

    It’s a happy miracle our party exists. There is no party committed to human freedom anywhere in the world as successful as ACT. Most politicians find it too easy to get votes by promising other people’s money, or promising to regulate other people’s choices.

    We take the hard road. We seek political power by promising voters only the freedom to make the most of their own lives. We do so because only the creative powers of a free society can generate the wealth to overcome our challenges.

    Not only is our mission fundamentally hard, but sometimes we’ve made it harder than necessary. I hesitate to bring it up, but we’ve burned ourselves on one or two of our own brushfires along the way.

    Our perk buster took a perk. Our tough on crime guy got convicted. Our leadership had a civil war. We were subject to an unconventional coup.

    In 2011, ACT ran one of the most corageous three-pronged election campaigns in modern history. Supply side economics, one law for all, and freeing the weed. There are constituencies for all three causes, but they don’t all get along.

    John Banks steadied the ship, and I want to thank him for his unconditional support. John didn’t just allow the party to survive, he allowed it to survive as a liberal party.

    I imagine being turned around to vote for gay marriage wasn’t easy for him. On the other hand, saying no to Jenny isn’t easier either.

    John’s sacrifices allowed Jamie Whyte and I to run a ticket in 2014, but things could still get much worse. It turned out my dear friend with a CV from heaven was brilliant at everything but politics.

    I say all this because it’s the backdrop to one hell of a climb. You have to see where we started to see how far we’ve come. That is, to see the full achievement of the people in this room and some who can’t be here today. We’ve made ACT the world’s most successful classical liberal party.

    For five years, nothing we did made a jot of difference. There was a Facebook group called ‘Is ACT polling 1 per cent yet,’ and it seemed like it would be forever.

    People said our party was not legitimate. They said we shouldn’t even be in Parliament. They said we had no real agency, being an offshoot of another party. When they talked about us, they didn’t talk about what I was saying in the present. Instead, they judged us by others had taken while I myself had been living in another country.

    After the election disaster of 2017, I said that it didn’t matter what our shop was selling. We just couldn’t get anyone in the door, let alone buying.

    This kind of relentless doomism was the opposite of everything ACT stands for. We believe, as Richard Prebble says in I’ve Been Thinking, that life isn’t like bad weather, you can make a difference in your time on Earth.

    Unfortunately, some things were like the weather. We couldn’t make it rain financially. Eric Clapton said nobody knows you when you’re down and out. I can tell you from experience that very few donate to your political party, either.

    Lindsay Fergusson is one who can’t be here, may he rest in peace. I remember we got to $7,000 left. We’d miss rent on the office and be kicked out if something didn’t change. Lindsay put $5,000 in ACT’s account and said ‘don’t tell Lynne.’ Lynne, I hope the secret’s ok to let out now.

    I used to try to call two ACT members every week day. One day I called a guy called Chris Reeve. I noticed his email address was superman. He also said he wanted to donate. Could this guy be for real?

    I earnestly explained where the party was up to and what I needed to raise in a year to keep it going. He looked at me and said “I’ll do half if that Jenny Gibbs will do the other half.”

    I still remember clearly the first time I met Jenny, in 2005. “I’m a social liberal, too,” she said. Her generous support of ACT is published by the Electoral Commission, but her personal support of successive ACT leaders is not. She is one of the warmest and wisest women in New Zealand and we’re lucky to have her.

    Not every donor gives in the thousands, but thousands have given donations to keep our party alive, even when it might have seemed like palliative care. I thank everyone who’s given to ACT, whether you gave $5 or $5,000.

    Some people give their time. In the wicked old days when we went it alone, I was never really alone. So many people helped, delivering mail, erecting signs, filing the party accounts, and opening up their homes for house meetings.

    Alison and Stu Macfarlane rapidly edited my second book Own Your Future. They said the timeline was mad. I said we couldn’t move the election. I think that book helped keep the party together. Most parties couldn’t publish a book of their policies. Some probably think books are a symbol of colonisation anyway. What sets ACT apart is that we are a party of ideas.

    People think a political party is an enormous enterprise with limitless resources required to Govern a country. If you were taking hope or reassurance from that, I’m sorry to disappoint.

    We’re more reliant on wings and prayers than massive resources. One person who found this out the hard way was Malcolm Pollock. Chis Fletcher, Auckland’s mother, introduced him to me.

    He thought he might get a minor role making the tea on the sidelines of this vast edifice. We walked out of Fraser’s café as the bewildered new Chair of the Party’s only functioning electorate committee! In similar circumstances, Ruwan Premathilaka became party President.

    So many Malcolms and Margarets up and down this country have volunteered to make our party possible. ACT has ten times more members today than it did when Malcolm joined.

    Perhaps the hardest role in the Party is being the President. You’re legally responsible for the organization, but to survive it needs to change strategy at a moment’s notice. It must be the Governance equivalent of riding a mechanical Bull.

    We’ve been lucky to have very patient presidents, who’ve been prepared to hold the ship together. The current President, John Windsor, is perhaps New Zealand’s greatest political activist.

    John has never met a problem he can’t quickly and quietly fix. Signs, mail, volunteers, no problem. They say amateurs talk strategy, professional’s talk logistics. In that sense John is a true professional, and a great ACT President.

    Some roles are so difficult we need to pay people to do them. That would be our parliamentary staff. If I’ve done anything right in politics, it’s been attracting and retaining great people.

    Yesterday my electorate office staff came with me to Government House for the swearing in ceremony. I wanted them to be there because they’re be best electorate team in the country. They get swamped with requests for help from other electorates. There’s three positions and we’ve had one change in ten years, if turnover rates mean anything then we have a great team.

    The same thing goes for ACT’s team in Wellington. We’ve been ranked by far the best working environment on the Parliamentary Precinct, and we keep attracting great talent.

    One talent stood out more than any. When Brooke van Velden came to work in Wellington, the End of Life Choice Bill was still possible, but far from inevitable.

    It got stuck in Select Committee for sixteen months, and the antis refused to be constructive. We couldn’t make the changes we needed to get political buy in, let-alone make good law.

    We’d have to make these changes in The Committee of the Whole House stage, where each MP can individually vote on every word of the legislation. One wrong vote and the Bill could end up a nonsense, sinking a three-year project in a heartbeat.

    That’s when we came up with the Sponsor’s Report. If the eight MPs on the Select Committee, supported by the Ministry of Health, couldn’t come up with a coherent set of reforms, then a 26-year-old woman with a sharp mind would.

    The Sponsor’s Report remains one of the most effective policy documents ever produced in New Zealand. It was written by Brooke but, like Helen Clark, I just signed it. In the end we got MPs to vote for every change we needed to make the law, and oppose every change that would have stuffed it up.

    Besides Brooke, there have been 13 other new ACT MPs in the last decade, and they have been extraordinary. Nicole, Chris, Simon, James, Karen, Mark, Toni, Damien, Todd, Andrew, Parmjeet, Laura, and Cameron have been an exceptional team of players. However, they’ve also formed a great playing team, and we know a playing team always beats a team of players.

    Today our MPs in Government are delivering that real change that you asked for and we campaigned on.

    Our Parliamentarians are taking on the scourge of deepfake porn. I bet Roger Douglas never thought that would be come a cause when he founded the Party.

    We’re standing up for academic freedom. We’re keeping a watchful eye on bureaucracy for farmers and tradies alike.

    In Government, our Ministers are reforming, reforming, reforming. Brooke is taking on our calcified Health and Safety.laws and the hoary old Holidays Act.

    Nicole is finally delivering a rational approach to firearms law even as she changes the courts to speed up the clogged system.

    Karen is turning the department that failed her so deeply and personally into an effective protector of those who came after her.

    Andrew is standing up for the property rights of farmers when he defends New Zealand’s biosecurity.

    Simon is the unsung hero of this Government, because delivering resource management law based on property rights will do more for the people who live in this country than any other reform this term.

    Of course, the Party’s also bringing back charter schools, opening up overseas investment, saving the taxpayer billions, bringing Pharmac into the 21st century, slashing red tape, and legislating the Regulatory Standards Bill so for the first time our property rights will be in law. We’ve been busy.

    Some people have helped ACT in more creative, unexpected ways. When the female pro dancers first met for the 2018 season of Dancing with the Stars, they all agreed on one thing. Nobody wanted to be paired with ‘that guy’. It was a guaranteed ticket home on the first elimination.

    Even my own family came to opening night. They thought it would be their only chance, and I might need consolation after the show.

    If I’d had any partner except Amelia McGregor, they would have been right. But we ended up campaigning as much as dancing. We took on the bullies and fought for the downtrodden, the overlooked, and the physically uncoordinated up and down New Zealand!

    The kindest thing the judges said is that I proved absolutely anyone can dance.

    I think that’s what our tireless minority has proven over the years. With quiet determination we can change our future, and the future course of this country. Anyone can dance.

    That’s why we stand for the farmers, the landlords, the licensed firearm owners, the free speech advocates, the small business owners, and the ethnic and religious minorities. Everyone has the right to live free in the country, because anyone can dance.

    Why New Zealand needs more of a movement like ours

    Now, this must all sound very nostalgic. If our opponents have listened this far, they’re probably hoping I’m building up to a retirement.

    I’ve talked about how we got to today because it’s worth pausing and looking back. It’s essential to acknowledge and thank the many people who got us this far. We should, as our stalwart member Vince Ashworth says, foster a culture of appreciation.

    That said, I’m not going anywhere but ahead.  Sorry Labour, ACT remains your worst nightmare, and New Zealand’s best hope.

    Nearly every single press release, fundraising email, talking point from Labour lately has been about how dangerous David Seymour is. I get so much free accommodation living in Willie Jackson’s head, I might need to declare it to Parliament’s register of interests.

    To Labour, yes I am dangerous, but only to you and your batty outriders. What’s more your strategy of directing more attention to ACT will backfire.

    To paraphrase Br’er Rabbit, we’re born and bred under political pressure. When you put the spotlight on ACT, you show people the party and the attitude this country needs.

    We can be down and out, through wicked old days, and rise again.

    We’ve been able to do it because we have something you can never take away, our philosophy. Our core beliefs are the beliefs that founded this country.

    Wave after wave of migrants have taken huge risks to give their children a better life on these islands.

    We are a nation of pioneers united in the belief that things can get better, no matter how hard they seem there is always hope.

    We don’t discriminate against each other, based on things we can’t change about ourselves. We only discriminate based on the choices we do make. Human freedom, and personal responsibility under the law.

    We know the world is unpredictable, and the only path to success is letting a thousand flowers bloom, looking for success that we can push up, instead of pull down.

    Our opponents are a Labour Party best described as lost. There is a Green Party that barely talks about the environment. There is the extraordinary spectre of a race-based party that increasingly threatens violence against its opponents, tolerated by the media.

    What unites them is a poverty of spirit. The idea that other people’s success is not an example of what’s possible, but somehow the source of their supporters’ problems.

    They traffic in the idolisation of envy, and even if they manage to sell it, it still won’t work.

    ACT on the other hand, and our celebration today, shows that anyone can dance. Yes our country faces problems, but ACT knows how to overcome them.

    It starts with belief. When seemed easiest to give up, you may find you were really just turning the corner. Today there are too many Kiwis leaving, and not enough believing.

    I believe New Zealand remains a good bet. We have no excuses for not creating a great country, but it’s the culture that matters. The real culture war today is not about which bathroom you go to, it is about whether we are here to push people up or pull them down.

    Can we move past the dark underbelly of tall poppy, and celebrate the achievements of Sheppard, Rutherford, Ngata and Hillary, with many more to come?

    We have to believe life is a positive sum game, that win-wins are possible if we treat each other with mutual respect and dignity.

    We can become a kind of Athens of the modern world, a place where creative people are welcomed to move and invest, joining people already here who fundamentally believe the point of our country is to make success possible.

    Every policy should be measured against the simple test, will this create the environment for New Zealanders to solve problems and make tomorrow better than today. It’s what we used to call, progressive. It used to be an idea owned by the left, but today they are far too busy tearing people down and putting them in boxes, virtue signaling, categorising, and otherwise discriminating.

    If there’s any party that can offer the values and the grit to take this country out of the doldrums and constant ‘meh’ that befalls New Zealand today, it’s the party that’s had to overcome the great Kiwi knocking machine from palliative care to the centre of Government.

    That effort would not have been possible without the people in this room and beyond who believed in us when no-one else would, because they believe in the Party’s ideas.

    Thank you for getting us to this milestone, and buckle yourselves in because in Hillary terms, today is only base camp.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Your smartphone is a parasite, according to evolution

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rachael L. Brown, Director of the Centre for Philosophy of the Sciences and Associate Professor of Philosophy, Australian National University

    vchal/shutterstock, The Conversation

    Head lice, fleas and tapeworms have been humanity’s companions throughout our evolutionary history. Yet, the greatest parasite of the modern age is no blood-sucking invertebrate. It is sleek, glass-fronted and addictive by design. Its host? Every human on Earth with a wifi signal.

    Far from being benign tools, smartphones parasitise our time, our attention and our personal information, all in the interests of technology companies and their advertisers.

    In a new article in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, we argue smartphones pose unique societal risks, which come into sharp focus when viewed through the lens of parasitism.

    What, exactly, is a parasite?

    Evolutionary biologists define a parasite as a species that benefits from a close relationship with another species – its host – while the host bears a cost.

    The head louse, for example, is entirely dependent on our own species for its survival. They only eat human blood, and if they become dislodged from their host, they survive only briefly unless they are fortunate enough to fall onto another human scalp. In return for our blood, head lice give us nothing but a nasty itch; that’s the cost.

    Smartphones have radically changed our lives. From navigating cities to managing chronic health diseases such as diabetes, these pocket-sized bits of tech make our lives easier. So much so that most of us are rarely without them.

    Yet, despite their benefits, many of us are hostage to our phones and slaves to the endless scroll, unable to fully disconnect. Phone users are paying the price with a lack of sleep, weaker offline relationships and mood disorders.

    From mutualism to parasitism

    Not all close species relationships are parasitic. Many organisms that live on or inside us are beneficial.

    Consider the bacteria in the digestive tracts of animals. They can only survive and reproduce in the gut of their host species, feeding on nutrients passing through. But they provide benefits to the host, including improved immunity and better digestion. These win-win associations are called mutualisms.

    The human-smartphone association began as a mutualism. The technology proved useful to humans for staying in touch, navigating via maps and finding useful information.

    Philosophers have spoken of this not in terms of mutualism, but rather as phones being an extension of the human mind, like notebooks, maps and other tools.

    From these benign origins, however, we argue the relationship has become parasitic. Such a change is not uncommon in nature; a mutualist can evolve to become a parasite, or vice versa.

    Smartphones as parasites

    As smartphones have become near-indispensible, some of the most popular apps they offer have come to serve the interests of the app-making companies and their advertisers more faithfully than those of their human users.

    These apps are designed to nudge our behaviour to keep us scrolling, clicking on advertising and simmering in perpetual outrage.

    The data on our scrolling behaviour is used to further that exploitation. Your phone only cares about your personal fitness goals or desire to spend more quality time with your kids to the extent that it uses this information to tailor itself to better capture your attention.

    So, it can be useful to think of users and their phones as akin to hosts and their parasites – at least some of the time.

    While this realisation is interesting in and of itself, the benefit of viewing smartphones through the evolutionary lens of parasitism comes into its own when considering where the relationship might head next – and how we could thwart these high-tech parasites.

    A bluestreak cleaner wrasse at work cleaning the mouth of a goatfish.
    Wayne and Pam Osborn/iNaturalist, CC BY-NC

    Where policing comes in

    On the Great Barrier Reef, bluestreak cleaner wrasse establish “cleaning stations” where larger fish allow the wrasse to feed on dead skin, loose scales and invertebrate parasites living in their gills. This relationship is a classic mutualism – the larger fish lose costly parasites and the cleaner wrasse get fed.

    Sometimes the cleaner wrasse “cheat” and nip their hosts, tipping the scale from mutualism to parasitism. The fish being cleaned may punish offenders by chasing them away or withholding further visits. In this, the reef fish exhibit something evolutionary biologists see as important to keeping mutualisms in balance: policing.

    Could we adequately police our exploitation by smartphones and restore a net-beneficial relationship?

    Evolution shows that two things are key: an ability to detect exploitation when it occurs, and the capacity to respond (typically by withdrawing service to the parasite).

    A difficult battle

    In the case of the smartphone, we can’t easily detect the exploitation. Tech companies that design the various features and algorithms to keep you picking up your phone aren’t advertising this behaviour.

    But even if you’re aware of the exploitative nature of smartphone apps, responding is also more difficult than simply putting the phone down.

    Many of us have become reliant on smartphones for everyday tasks. Rather than remembering facts, we offload the task to digital devices – for some people, this can change their cognition and memory.

    We depend on having a camera for capturing life events or even just recording where we parked the car. This both enhances and limits our memory of events.

    Governments and companies have only further cemented our dependence on our phones, by moving their service delivery online via mobile apps. Once we pick up the phone to access our bank accounts or access government services, we’ve lost the battle.

    How then can users redress the imbalanced relationship with their phones, turning the parasitic relationship back to a mutualistic one?

    Our analysis suggests individual choice can’t reliably get users there. We are individually outgunned by the massive information advantage tech companies hold in the host-parasite arms race.

    The Australian government’s under-age social media ban is an example of the kind of collective action required to limit what these parasites can legally do. To win the battle, we will also need restrictions on app features known to be addictive, and on the collection and sale of our personal data.

    Rob Brooks receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    Rachael L. Brown 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. Your smartphone is a parasite, according to evolution – https://theconversation.com/your-smartphone-is-a-parasite-according-to-evolution-256795

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Bougainville wants independence. China’s support for a controversial mine could pave the way

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Anna-Karina Hermkens, Senior Lecturer and Researcher, Anthropology, Macquarie University

    Bougainville, an autonomous archipelago currently part of Papua New Guinea, is determined to become the world’s newest country.

    To support this process, it’s offering foreign investors access to a long-shuttered copper and gold mine. Formerly owned by the Australian company Rio Tinto, the Panguna mine caused displacement and severe environmental damage when it operated between 1972 and 1989.

    It also sparked a decade-long civil war from 1988 to 1998 that killed an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 civilians and caused enduring traumas and divisions.

    Industry players believe 5.3 million tonnes of copper and 547 tonnes of gold remain at the site. This is attracting foreign interest, including from China.

    Australia views Bougainville as strategically important to “inner security arc”. The main island is about 1,500 kilometres from Queensland’s Port Douglas.

    Given this, the possibility of China’s increasing presence in Bougainville raises concerns about shifting allegiances and the potential for Beijing to exert greater influence over the region.

    Australia’s tangled history in Bougainville

    Bougainville is a small island group in the South Pacific with a population of about 300,000. It consists of two main islands: Buka in the north and Bougainville Island in the south.

    Bougainville has a long history of unwanted interference from outsiders, including missionaries, plantation owners and colonial administrations (German, British, Japanese and Australian).

    Two weeks before Papua New Guinea received its independence from Australia in 1975, Bougainvilleans sought to split away, unilaterally declaring their own independence. This declaration was ignored in both Canberra and Port Moresby, but Bougainville was given a certain degree of autonomy to remain within the new nation of PNG.

    The opening of the Panguna mine in the 1970s further fractured relations between Australia and Bougainville. Landowners opposed the environmental degradation and limited revenues they received from the mine. The influx of foreign workers from Australia, PNG and China also led to resentment. Violent resistance grew, eventually halting mining operations and expelling almost all foreigners.

    Under the leadership of Francis Ona, the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) fought a long civil war to restore Bougainville to Me’ekamui, or the “Holy Land” it once was.

    Australia supported the PNG government’s efforts to quell the uprising with military equipment, including weapons and helicopters.

    After the war ended, Australia helped broker the Bougainville Peace Agreement in 2001. Although aid programs have since begun to heal the rift between Australia and Bougainville, many Bougainvilleans feel Canberra continues to favour PNG’s territorial integrity.

    In 2019, Bougainvilleans voted overwhelmingly for independence in a referendum. Australia’s response, however, was ambiguous.

    Despite a slow and frustrating ratification process, Bougainvilleans remain adamant they will become independent by 2027.

    As Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama, a former BRA commander, told me in 2024:

    We are moving forward. And it’s the people’s vision: independence. I’m saying, no earlier than 2025, no later than 2027. My benchmark is 2026, the first of September. I will declare. No matter what happens. I will declare independence on our republican constitution.

    Major issues to overcome

    Bougainville leaders see the reopening of Panguna mine as key to financing independence. Bougainville Copper Limited, the Rio Tinto subsidiary that once operated the mine, backs this assessment.

    The Bougainville Autonomous Government has built its own gold refinery and hopes to create its own sovereign wealth fund to support independence. The mine would generate much-needed revenue, infrastructure and jobs for the new nation.

    But reopening the mine would also require addressing the ongoing environmental and social issues it has caused. These include polluted rivers and water sources, landslides, flooding, chemical waste hazards, the loss of food security, displacement, and damage to sacred sites.

    Many of these issues have been exacerbated by years of small-scale alluvial mining by Bougainvilleans themselves, eroding the main road into Panguna.

    Some also worry reopening the mine could reignite conflict, as landowners are divided about the project. Mismanagement of royalties could also stoke social tensions.

    Violence related to competition over alluvial mining has already been increasing at the mine.

    More broadly, Bougainville is faced with widespread corruption and poor governance.

    The Bougainville government cannot deal with these complex issues on its own. Nor can it finance the infrastructure and development needed to reopen the mine. This is why it’s seeking foreign investors.

    Open for business

    Historically, China has a strong interest in the region. According to Pacific researcher Anna Powles, Chinese efforts to build relationships with Bougainville’s political elite have increased over the years.

    Chinese investors have offered development packages contingent on long-term mining revenues and Bougainville’s independence. Bougainville is showing interest.

    Patrick Nisira, the minister for commerce, trade, industry and economic development, said last year the proposed Chinese infrastructure investment is “aligning perfectly with Bougainville’s nationhood aspirations”.

    The government has also reportedly made overtures to the United States, offering a military base in Bougainville in return for support reopening the mine.

    Given American demand for minerals, Bougainville could very well end up in the middle of a battle between China and the US over influence in the new nation, and thus in our region.

    Which path will Bougainville and Australia take?

    There is support in Bougainville for a future without large-scale mining. One minister, Geraldine Paul, has been promoting the islands’ booming cocoa industry and fisheries to support an independent Bougainville.

    The new nation will also need new laws to hold the government accountable and protect the people and culture of Bougainville. As Paul told me in 2024:

    […]the most important thing is we need to make sure that we invest in our foundation and that’s building our family and culture. Everything starts from there.

    What happens in Bougainville affects Australia and the broader security dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. With September 1 2026 just around the corner, it is time for Australia to intensify its diplomatic and economic relationships with Bougainville to maintain regional stability.

    Anna-Karina Hermkens receives funding from the Australian Research Council to follow and analyse Bougainville’s journey towards independence.

    – ref. Bougainville wants independence. China’s support for a controversial mine could pave the way – https://theconversation.com/bougainville-wants-independence-chinas-support-for-a-controversial-mine-could-pave-the-way-254320

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Meuser Highlights Ninth District Businesses at House Small Business Showcase

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Dan Meuser (PA-9)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Yesterday, Congressman Dan Meuser (PA-09) participated in the House Small Business Committee’s 2nd Annual Small Business Showcase, held in the U.S. Capitol. The event brought together innovative small businesses from across the country and featured remarks from Republican leaders and Small Business Administrator Kelly Loeffler.

    At the invitation of Congressman Meuser, two standout businesses from Pennsylvania’s Ninth District—Masser Family of Companies and C2G Energy Solutions—were featured at the Showcase, representing the strength and diversity of the region’s small business economy.

    The Masser Family of Companies, headquartered in Sacramento, PA, is an eighth-generation, family-owned agricultural enterprise dating back to 1754. With operations spanning farming, processing, logistics, and grain storage, Masser has become the largest potato grower and distributor in Pennsylvania. Julie Masser Ballay, who serves as Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, has helped modernize and expand the company’s capabilities while maintaining its deep-rooted commitment to community and innovation. Julie previously testified before the Small Business Committee on the importance of preserving pro-growth tax policies like the R&D credit.

    C2G Energy Solutions, based in Montrose, is a leading provider of sustainable water and waste management solutions for the energy industry. Under the leadership of Co-Founders Jesse Bonnice and Adam Locke, the company develops advanced treatment technologies to upcycle industrial waste streams—converting byproducts into usable resources and minimizing environmental impact. C2G’s Shaskas Facility exemplifies this model with on-site wastewater treatment, extensive storage capabilities, and direct natural gas supply infrastructure that supports a more circular and sustainable energy economy.

    “These companies are perfect examples of what happens when you pair entrepreneurial spirit with strong community values,” said Congressman Meuser. “Masser has built an agricultural operation that honors centuries of tradition while embracing cutting-edge innovation—and they’ve done it right here in Schuylkill County. C2G is pioneering a groundbreaking process to produce rare minerals from a previously overlooked source—turning what was once considered waste into a valuable asset for the energy sector. These are the kinds of businesses that fuel our economy, strengthen our communities, and prove that rural America is not just participating in the future—we’re leading it.”

    Congressman Meuser, a member of the Small Business Committee, spoke during the Showcase and emphasized the need to pass President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill to extend key provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

    “As someone who spent more than 20 years helping grow a small business into a larger business, I understand the challenges entrepreneurs face,” Meuser said. “Small businesses need certainty to plan, invest, and expand—and that means making the 199A small business deduction and 100% bonus depreciation permanent, restoring immediate R&D expensing, and delivering real, lasting relief that empowers Main Street to grow and compete. That’s why we must pass the Big Beautiful Bill, which extends these critical pro-growth provisions and gives small businesses the long-term stability they deserve.”

    Administrator Loeffler’s participation underscored the SBA’s renewed focus on common-sense regulation and pro-growth policies under President Trump’s leadership.

    “We’re fortunate to have an SBA Administrator who listens, leads, and understands the real needs of small businesses,” Meuser added. “Administrator Loeffler brings practical experience to the job and a clear focus on reducing burdens and expanding opportunity. She also has the ear of President Trump, whose commitment to pro-growth, pro-small business policies continue to make a real difference for Main Street America.”

    The event concluded with a reception honoring participating businesses and thanking them for their contributions to the American economy.

    A video of Congressman Meuser’s remarks can be found here. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Lee Urges Amodei to Withdraw Proposal to Send NV Public Land Sales Proceeds to Federal Government for Billionaire Tax Breaks Rather Than Staying in NV

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Susie Lee (NV-03)

    WASHINGTON – Today, Congresswoman Susie Lee (NV-03) sent a letterto Congressman Mark Amodei (NV-02) urging him to immediately withdraw his reckless Clark County public land sale proposal that sends proceeds of Nevada public land sales to Washington to pay for House Republicans’ tax-breaks-for-billionaires bill.

    For decades, federal law has ensured that proceeds from land sales in southern Nevada stay in Nevada. Amodei’s proposal — which was added to Republican-led legislation last week without the consent or collaboration of the Clark County Commission or any member of Nevada’s federal delegation elected by the voters of Clark County — would instead send these proceeds to the federal government.

    Lee’s initial response to Amodei’s dead of night surprise amendment can be found here.

    “Prior to the surprise introduction of your 33-page proposal, you failed to collaborate or consult with — or even alert — any member of Nevada’s federal delegation elected by the voters of Clark County,” wrote Congresswoman Lee. “Further, you acted against the wishes — and without the consent — of Clark County itself, a fact that you acknowledged in real time under questioning by House Natural Resources Committee Democrats during the markup of your proposal last Tuesday night.”

    Lee continued, “For decades, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) has ensured that proceeds from the sales of federal land in Clark County stay in Nevada. Your proposal would instead send Nevada’s dollars to Washington to subsidize Republicans’ reckless spending and billionaire tax cuts.”

    Full text of the letter can be found here and below: 

    May 13, 2025

    The Honorable Mark Amodei

    United States House of Representatives

    104 Cannon House Office Building

    Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Congressman Amodei:

    As a member of Nevada’s congressional delegation who represents Clark County, I urge you to immediately move to strip the reckless Clark County public land sale provisions that you advanced as “pay-fors” in House Republicans’ tax-breaks-for-billionaires bill under the cover of darkness last week. 

    While I have additional concerns with your proposal in full, including how the Utah provisions you included could affect the integrity and future operations of the Colorado River System, I want to underscore the following four concerns in particular, which make the Clark County provisions completely unworkable:

    No Collaboration: Prior to the surprise introduction of your 33-page proposal, you failed to collaborate or consult with — or even alert — any member of Nevada’s federal delegation elected by the voters of Clark County. 

    No Consent: Further, you acted against the wishes — and without the consent — of Clark County itself, a fact that you acknowledged in real time under questioning by House Natural Resources Committee Democrats during the markup of your proposal last Tuesday night. A spokesperson for the Board of County Commissioners has since reaffirmed that your proposal “does not reflect the Board’s priorities to facilitate responsible future development, especially as it relates to environmental conservation, water and public infrastructure.”

    No Consistency: For decades, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) has ensured that proceeds from the sales of federal land in Clark County stay in Nevada. Your proposal would instead send Nevada’s dollars to Washington to subsidize Republicans’ reckless spending and billionaire tax cuts.

    No Clarity: Finally, because of the last-minute, late-night introduction of your proposal — which was apparently timed at the direction of the Republican House Natural Resources Committee chairman, presumably to prevent the proposal from receiving unwanted scrutiny in the light of day — key components of the proposal are still unclear. This includes even something as basic as precisely how many acres of public land you intend to sell off.

    Per recent reporting by E&E News:

    While Republicans had suggested the sales would amount to a few thousand acres,

    advocates and Democrats have said that in analyzing the amendment it could be 500,000 acres in total — or more.

    A spokesperson for the Natural Resources Committee said they did not have exact

    figures. An Amodei spokesperson explained, after this story originally published, that the amendment involved 449,174 acres but that actions involving 356,100 acres would not amount to a net change in federal ownership.

    I ask that you act as quickly to remove the Clark County public land sale provisions as you acted to rashly add these provisions to Republicans’ tax-breaks-for-billionaires legislation in the first place.

    The sooner that you agree to end this unfortunate — and entirely unnecessary — episode in the history of Nevada and the Nevada delegation, the better for us all.

    Sincerely,

    Susie Lee

    Member of Congress

    CC: 

    The Honorable Bruce Westerman, Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources

    The Honorable Jared Huffman, Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources

    # # # 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Van Drew Slams the Murphy Administration for Lawsuit Over Offshore Wind Halt

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jeff Van Drew (NJ02)

    Washington, DC –Today, Congressman Van Drew released the following statement after New Jersey joined 16 other states in filing a lawsuit against President Trump for his executive order halting offshore wind.

    “You cannot make this stuff up,” said Congressman Van Drew. “The Murphy administration already burned through billions of your tax dollars on offshore wind projects that never worked. They pushed it on us even when towns were saying no, fishermen were saying no, and the tourism industry was saying no. They looked the other way while whales washed up on our beaches. They ignored the Pentagon when it said it was a national security risk. The NJ Ratepayer Advocate said it would raise utility bills. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the cons outweighed the pros. They did not listen to anyone. And now, after all that, they want to throw even more taxpayer dollars at it in court. It truly is a slap in the face to every taxpayer and every family struggling to pay their energy bill.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Chinese experts help modernize rice-prawn farming techniques, improving Cambodian farmers’ livelihoods

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

    Experts from Shanghai Ocean University provide training for Cambodian farmers in Takeo province, Cambodia on May 31, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    Cambodian farmer Min Chhon, 57, has experienced significant improvement in his family’s livelihoods after having received technical training and on-site guidance on rice-prawn farming from Shanghai Ocean University experts.

    Chhon said he grew only rice on his land of nearly two hectares, which yielded about six tons per annum, before the launch of projects of “Rice-Fish Farming Technology Cooperation and Poverty Alleviation Through Aquaculture in Lancang-Mekong Countries” and “Cambodian Smart Fisheries PILOT Project” carried out by the Shanghai Ocean University and Foreign Economic Cooperation Center (FECC) of China’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

    “But since the launch of the projects, I have raised giant freshwater prawns in the rice fields, which yields around one ton of prawns in each harvest,” the father with three children told Xinhua on Saturday.

    “Before the technique of prawn farming were introduced, we only planted rice and earned a very limited income, but after we did rice-prawns farming in rice fields, we got much wealthier,” he said. “The yields from the rice-prawn farming are highly satisfactory.”

    Chhon is among dozens of farmers in southern Takeo province, who have been trained by Chinese experts from the Shanghai Ocean University and FECC in collaboration with the Fisheries Administration of Cambodia’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

    Through the projects, the Chinese experts have provided Cambodian farmers with technical guidance and new technologies to boost prawn production in rice paddies and other aquaculture settings.

    Farmers have also been taught to use drones to distribute feed in rice fields and aquaculture ponds effectively.

    “Chinese experts have helped us, including juvenile nursery, donating feeds, juveniles, some equipment and technical manuals, delivering techniques, and others,” Chhon said.” These two projects have helped improve my family’s livelihoods significantly.”

    Experts from Shanghai Ocean University provide training for Cambodian farmers to use drones to distribute feed in rice fields and aquaculture ponds in Takeo province, Cambodia on May 31, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    Launched in January 2024 and will last till 2027, the projects are part of the Cambodia-China “Fish and Rice Corridor” cooperation, which has been established to accelerate agricultural modernization, to ensure food and nutrition security, and to increase incomes for rural farmers in Cambodia.

    Also, the projects will help more farmers get rid of poverty, and promote the sustainable development of Cambodian agriculture and rural areas.

    On Saturday, a team of experts from the Shanghai Ocean University visited the project sites and provided technical guidance to farmers in Chrey Ngor village of Bourei Cholsar district in Takeo province.

    Wu Xugan, a professor in aquaculture at Shanghai Ocean University, said the “rice-fish co-culture project” has provided technical and technological knowledge to farmers, helping them increase fish or prawn yields, which will not only boost their incomes, but also ensure nutrition and food security.

    “The rice-fish co-culture project is very important because rice and fish are two major foods for the Cambodian people,” he told Xinhua during the visit to a rice-prawn farm.

    “When we do the rice-fish co-culture, it has multiple benefits for both rice and fish. For example, we feed prawns, and the prawns will produce ammonia and manure, which are the fertilizers for rice,” he added.

    Also, he said, prawns will eat the pests that are harmful to rice paddies.

    Wu said the project has developed two rice-fish farming models, namely rice-giant freshwater prawn co-culture and rice-giant freshwater prawn rotation, and large-size prawn seedling cultivation technology.

    Thay Somony, director of the Department of Aquaculture Development at the Fisheries Administration of Cambodia’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, said that through the project, Chinese experts have trained Cambodian farmers on ecosystem service analysis, biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation strategies, and the digitalization of prawn nursing.

    “By adopting innovative practices such as rice-fish co-culture and digital prawn nursery, farmers can increase productivity while minimizing environmental impacts, leading to improved food security and enhanced economic resilience,” he told Xinhua in a recent interview.

    “The integration of diverse farming systems enables farmers to diversify their income sources, reducing their vulnerability to economic shocks and improving their overall livelihoods,” he added.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Bangladeshi chief adviser urges Chinese investors to make Bangladesh their home, production hub

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

    Bangladeshi interim government’s Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus delivers a speech during the China-Bangladesh Conference on Investment and Trade in Dhaka, Bangladesh, June 1, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    Bangladeshi interim government’s Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus on Sunday urged Chinese investors to make Bangladesh their home and production hub.

    During his speech at the China-Bangladesh Conference on Investment and Trade, Yunus said Chinese companies are the masters of manufacturing, and Bangladesh wants to be their partner.

    He said the interim government has been steadfast in implementing reforms, enhancing the investment climate, streamlining regulatory frameworks and ensuring a conducive environment for business operations.

    Yunus invited Chinese investors to explore the extensive opportunities that Bangladesh offers in textiles, endowments, pharmaceuticals, agro-processing, fisheries, food, and information technology.

    The conference attracted more than 400 representatives from Chinese and Bangladeshi enterprises and business associations.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Waller, The Effects of Tariffs on the Three I’s: Inflation, Inflation Persistence, and Inflation Expectations

    Source: US State of New York Federal Reserve

    Thank you to the conference organizers for inviting me to speak today. I have attended this conference several times and I’m honored to be on the program this year. Today, I will speak on the U.S. economic outlook and the implications for monetary policy.1 I will focus my comments on two issues: first, the effects of tariffs on inflation persistence, and second, the divergence of household inflation expectations and financial market measures of inflation expectations.
    The theme of this conference is structural shifts and monetary policy. The key structural shift that is affecting the economies of both the United States and South Korea is the recent change in U.S. trade policy, and a substantial share of my remarks will address how this shift is affecting the U.S. outlook.
    The variability in tariff announcements this year, including the whipsawing of court rulings and doubling of metal tariffs last week, has created considerable uncertainty about where trade policy will settle. In mid-April, based on how things looked at the time, I proposed two scenarios to consider in framing an outlook and a preferred stance of monetary policy: a large tariff scenario and a smaller tariff scenario.2 In both cases, I assumed that the tariff increases would lead to a one-time boost to prices that would temporarily raise inflation, after which inflation would return to its underlying rate. This temporary increase could play out with a prompt rise in inflation that could recede quickly, or it could occur more gradually with a more modest increase that would recede more slowly. As I will explain, crucial to this judgment is my assumption that longer-term inflation expectations remain anchored.
    The large-tariff scenario I described assumed an average, trade-weighted tariff for goods imports of 25 percent, which is close to where things stood after the 90-day tariff suspensions announced April 9, and my scenario assumed that this would remain in place for some time. In that case, I argued that inflation based on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index could reach a peak of 5 percent on an annualized basis this year if businesses passed through all of the tariff costs to consumers. If firms absorbed some of the tariff increase, then inflation might peak around 4 percent. I also argued that an economic slowdown from these higher costs could push the unemployment rate up from 4.2 percent to 5 percent next year.
    The smaller-tariff scenario assumed a 10 percent average tariff on goods imports would remain in place but that higher country and sector specific tariffs would be negotiated down over time. In this case, inflation may rise to 3 percent on an annualized basis and then dissipate. Growth in output and employment would slow, with the unemployment rate rising but probably not as high as 5 percent.
    Reported progress on trade negotiations since that speech leaves my base case somewhere in between these two scenarios. The temporary reduction in China tariffs has significantly decreased the trade-weighted average tariff, since China supplied about 13 percent of U.S. goods imports in 2024. But that reduction is only temporary and is due to increase if a trade agreement is not reached by August 12. Meanwhile, tariffs on other countries were temporarily lowered to 10 percent, but it is unclear where they will end up. Furthermore, the Administration continues to say that it plans additional tariffs on specific industries and sectors of the economy. Last week’s court decisions declaring a large share of tariffs illegal introduce additional uncertainty, but there seem to be multiple options for maintaining tariffs, so I will stick with an estimated trade weighted tariff right now of 15 percent on U.S. goods imports, which falls in between my large- and smaller- tariff scenarios. I see the risks of my large tariff scenario having gone down, but there is still considerable uncertainty about the ultimate levels, and thus about the impact on the economic outlook.
    The context for this uncertainty about tariffs is that hard data on the fundamentals of the economy lately has been mostly positive and supportive of the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) economic objectives. There is very little evidence of the effect of trade policy in this data on inflation or economic activity through April, but that may change in the coming weeks. In comparison, there is evidence of tariff effects in the “soft data” based on surveys of consumers, businesses, and investors—indications of an expected slowdown in economic activity and an increase in prices. As of today, I see downside risks to economic activity and employment and upside risks to inflation in the second half of 2025, but how these risks evolve is strongly tied to how trade policy evolves.
    A careful examination of the hard data on overall economic activity through April shows it has been, on balance, positive. I say this because, while real gross domestic product contracted slightly in the first quarter, private domestic final demand, a measure of spending by consumers and businesses, grew at a healthy annual rate of 2.5 percent in the quarter. Of course, economic policy uncertainty among businesses is very elevated, and this has affected measures of sentiment and confidence for consumers and businesses, which fell to historically low levels in April. One index of this policy uncertainty compiled from newspaper stories, government reports, and the dispersion of the forecasts of private-sector economists rose in April to nearly twice the level seen during the pandemic and the Global Financial Crisis.3 However, consumer sentiment rebounded with the announcement that the China tariffs had been lowered temporarily. And households’ spending should continue to be supported by income from the resilient labor market. In addition, my business contacts have told me that, because of tariff uncertainty, their investment plans are currently on hold but are not canceled. So we may see a slowdown in investment in the near term but a jump back up later this year.
    Wherever things end up on a continuum between my “large” and “smaller” scenarios, I do expect tariffs will result in an increase in the unemployment rate that will, all else equal, probably linger. Higher tariffs will reduce spending, and businesses will respond, in part, by reducing production and payrolls.
    We won’t get the jobs report for May until this Friday, but the consensus expectation is that employers added 130,000 jobs and that the unemployment rate remained steady at 4.2 percent. We have seen a reduction in wage pressures over recent months, and the ratio of job vacancies to the number of unemployed people has moderated from as high as 2 a couple of years ago to close to 1 today, which was about where it was before the pandemic. With a balanced labor market, if aggregate demand slows noticeably, businesses will likely look to cut workers. But I believe job cuts would be modest if the smaller-tariff scenario is realized. Most chief executives I have spoken to say that they can maintain their current operations with an effective tariff of 10 percent, looking for efficiencies here and there, and won’t have to significantly reduce their workforces.
    InflationNow let me turn to the outlook for inflation. Before the recent shift in U.S. trade policy, inflation had been making consistent, but uneven, progress over the past two years toward our 2 percent goal. While that progress seemed to stall at the beginning of 2025, it has resumed the past two months. The same pattern of higher readings at the start of the year, followed by lower readings the next couple of months, also occurred in 2024 and I expect that research will eventually reveal some residual seasonal effect or other factor that has affected at least some prices early in the year.
    Total PCE inflation for April rose 0.1 percent, and core PCE inflation without energy and food prices increased by the same amount. It was the second monthly reading at 0.1 percent or less, and it means that headline PCE inflation was up 2.1 percent over the 12 months through April and that core was up 2.5 percent. In the absence of the tariff increases, I was expecting inflation would continue to be coming down nicely to our 2 percent goal. But now I expect that the effect of higher tariffs will raise inflation in the coming months. The surge in imports to build up inventories ahead of the April 2 announcement makes the timing of price increases somewhat uncertain.
    Thinking about the rest of 2025 and 2026, I expect the largest factor driving inflation will be tariffs. As I said earlier, whatever the size of the tariffs, I expect the effects on inflation to be temporary, and most apparent in the second half of 2025. This will be determined not only by the ultimate size of the increase, but also by how exporters and importers respond, something that is highly uncertain. Will foreign exporters discount prices to try and preserve market share? Will domestic importers absorb some of the tariff increases to shore up demand and sales volumes? Will firms simply pass the entire tariff along to consumers? Since about 10 percent of personal spending goes to imported goods, if the ultimate tariff levels are closer to my 10 percent smaller-tariff scenario and if that is fully passed through to consumers, then the tariff would push up prices 1 percent. But based on my conversations with business leaders, I suspect the tariff cost will not be fully passed through and, instead, the burden will be distributed something like 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3 among consumers, importers and exporters. In this case, it would raise inflation three tenths of 1 percent for a short period. However, if the tariffs are higher than 10 percent, more of the increase is likely to be passed on to consumers, as businesses face limits in how much they can absorb and still find a way to remain profitable.
    I have also heard from business contacts that firms may choose to spread the tariff across non-imported goods. This would increase many goods prices a little instead of boosting import prices by a larger amount. But this approach would not affect the total impact of tariffs on the overall price level. Let me illustrate why using an example.
    Imagine a firm selling 10 goods with equal sales revenue so that all have an equal weight of 1/10 when aggregating the firm’s average price. Now assume one of the goods is imported. A 10 percent tariff on the imported good that is fully passed through raises the price of the imported good by 10 percent, while the prices of the other nine goods remain unchanged. This pricing strategy raises the average price of all goods by 1 percent. Now, instead, suppose the firm chooses a different strategy and decides to spread the tariff cost across all goods by raising all 10 goods prices by 1 percent. As a result, the price of the imported good increases much less, but the prices of the other nine goods now increase a bit even though they are not subject to tariffs. Under this strategy, the average price of the firm’s goods still goes up 1 percent, and the tariff is fully passed through. So both pricing strategies have the same total effect on the aggregate price level across the firm and, if repeated, across the economy. The same logic applies to passing along the tariff via a sequence of smaller price increases instead of at a single point in time—in the end, the aggregate price level goes up by the same amount regardless of whether it is gradual or immediate.
    I have heard the concern that some firms may raise prices opportunistically while blaming the tariff increase. There is always a risk that firms blame some purported cost spike for a price increase, but it doesn’t happen often because of the risk of losing market share to competitors or squandering the allegiance of loyal customers. So while this may happen in isolated instances, I do not believe it will be a significant source of additional inflation above and beyond the tariff-induced increase.
    Inflation PersistenceLet me now turn to the first of two issues about inflation that I want to cover in more detail. This is inflation persistence. The economics behind a tariff increase implies it should have a transitory effect on prices—tariffs raise prices once, but those prices don’t keep going up. I know that hearing “transitory” will certainly remind many people of the consensus on the FOMC in 2021 that the pandemic increases to inflation would be transitory. Inflation turned out to be much more persistent than we thought it would be. Am I playing with fire by taking this position again? It sure looks like it. So why do I believe a tariff-induced inflation spike will not be persistent this time?
    Looking back to how inflation played out in 2021 and 2022, I believe there were three key factors that increased the persistence of the initial burst of inflation in 2021. First, there was a negative labor supply shock that was more persistent than expected. I believed that once the economy reopened, all of this labor would return. However, many workers left the labor market because of illness, or to care for children and family members, or took early retirement. They never returned. And with every wave of COVID-19, the United States experienced additional waves of early retirements that inhibited the labor supply from returning to its pre-pandemic level. Also, with the service sector shut down, demand surged for goods as spending on travel and other services halted and the negative labor supply shock led to a shortage of workers in goods production, delivery, and sales. Goods industries raised wages to attract workers and then once the economy began to reopen, service-sector firms had to pay higher wages to get workers back. This persistent shortage of labor from these several pandemic-related effects continued through 2021 and 2022 as job vacancies skyrocketed and firms had no choice but to pass along escalating wage increases in the form of higher prices.
    The second factor driving inflation after the pandemic was that the supply chain disruptions that many expected to be temporary turned out to be more persistent. There were multiple waves of COVID affecting different regions of the world at different times, so that resolving production and transportation problems was constantly disrupted by the ebbing and flowing of the disease. One notable detail is that China’s lockdowns lasted much longer than expected and played an important role in global supply disruptions.
    The last factor was the quite stimulative fiscal response in the United States. There were hundreds of billions of dollars in grants to businesses to pay idled workers and large transfer payments to households. Furthermore, additional fiscal spending bills in 2021 and 2022 further stimulated aggregate demand. I am willing to admit that, at the time, I underappreciated how the large and sustained fiscal response would combine with highly accommodative monetary policy to overstimulate aggregate demand in an economy that quickly recovered from the early effects of the pandemic.
    Today I don’t see factors like the three I have described here reinforcing the inflationary effects of higher tariffs. There is no longer a shortage of labor and, at least so far, no indication that tariffs are causing big disruptions in supply chains, as the recent surge in imports that I mentioned should attest. While Congress is putting together a tax bill, as it stands now, a large share of that legislation extends tax cuts that have been on the books for eight years and thus would not be stimulative. Finally, monetary policy is in a very different position—we have shrunk our balance sheet by over $2 trillion and our policy rate is north of 4 percent instead of being at the effective lower bound. So I do not believe one can use 2021 and 2022 as a basis for predicting what will happen to the persistence of inflation arising from tariffs.
    Inflation ExpectationsNow let’s discuss the second issue of diverging inflation expectations. I have argued that I believe the tariff-induced inflation will be transitory and we should look through it when setting policy as long as longer-term inflation expectations are anchored.4 However, right now, we are seeing a dramatic disparity between household measures of inflation expectations and market-based measures, as well as the inflation expectations of professional forecasters. The University of Michigan’s Surveys of Consumers show that both near- and longer-term inflation expectations have increased strikingly, on net, in the past few months and currently stand at 6.6 percent and 4.2 percent respectively. Meanwhile, inflation expectation measures based on prices of nominal versus inflation-adjusted securities have not increased very much, with 2-year Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities inflation compensation around 2.7 percent and 5-year and 10-year around 2.4 percent. Also, the median from the Survey of Professional Forecasters for consumer price inflation 6 to 10 years ahead is at 2.2 percent.
    This highly unusual discrepancy between inflation expectation measures creates problems for policymakers. Whose expectations should we be paying attention to? I prefer to look at market-based measures of inflation compensation and professional forecasters’ expectations because they have money on the line. Those buying inflation protected-securities lose money if they are wrong. Professional forecasters have clients and firms making financial decisions based on those forecasts and will lose customers if their predictions are wrong. As I used to teach my students, in a capitalist system, competition will drive firms out of business if they make bad decisions. Forecasting mistakes can be costly for consumers, but households aren’t competing with each other and won’t be driven out of business if they make bad decisions.
    But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the household measures of high inflation expectations are correct and financial market participants’ expectations are too low. What are the implications of this mismatch?5 If households actually believe inflation will be 7 percent for several years, workers would be expected to demand at least a 7 percent raise to keep their real wages from falling.6 If firms grant those wage demands, then inflation would rise by roughly 7 percent as the wage increases are passed through. Also, job search and the quits rate should increase as workers look for higher-paying jobs.
    Is this happening? Although that was the story a few years ago in a tight labor market, I am not now hearing about such an upturn in wage demands from my business contacts, and I don’t see it in wage and compensation data. After several years of outsized pay increases and in a labor market that has loosened significantly from a year or two ago, I think workers don’t have much leverage to ask for raises and are probably more worried about keeping their jobs right now. Furthermore, instead of increasing, the quits rate is below its pre-pandemic level. Given labor market conditions, it seems hard to believe that the high inflation expectations we are seeing in consumer surveys will lead to large nominal wage increases and a second-round burst of inflation.
    A second point here is that if consumers believed we were about to face high inflation, they would be front-loading purchases, much as importers seem to be front-loading their inventories. But, on the contrary, with the exception of motor vehicles, we haven’t seen a broad surge in the consumer spending, which overall is growing more slowly than it did in the second half of 2024.
    For financial businesses, they set interest rates of their loans and financial products based on expected inflation. Their views should be embedded in market-based inflation expectations and those of professional forecasters. If they got the forecast wrong and the nominal interest rates on their loans were too low, then their real returns would be dramatically reduced and their profit margins squeezed. I have a hard time believing interest rates are mis-priced so badly. If they were, then households would think the real interest rate on loans is greatly suppressed. Consequently, loan demand for interest-sensitive products like houses, cars, and durable goods should surge. While loan demand appears to be healthy, there are no reports from banks or other financial firms that loan demand is surging.
    So, based on wage demands, spending patterns, and loan demand, I see no evidence of economic activity that conforms to the inflation views reflected in the University of Michigan household measures, which, like other polling about the economy in recent years, may reflect attitudes about other factors.7
    In conclusion, given my belief that any tariff-induced inflation will not be persistent and that inflation expectations are anchored, I support looking through any tariff effects on near term-inflation when setting the policy rate. Fortunately, the strong labor market and progress on inflation through April gives me additional time to see how trade negotiations play out and the economy evolves. Assuming that the effective tariff rate settles close to my lower tariff scenario, that underlying inflation continues to make progress to our 2 percent goal, and that the labor market remains solid, I would be supporting “good news” rate cuts later this year.

    1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text
    2. See Waller (2025) A Tale of Two Outlooks. Return to text
    3. See Scott R. Baker, Nick Bloom, and Steven J. Davis (2025), “Economic Policy Uncertainty,” webpage, https://www.policyuncertainty.com/us_monthly.html. Return to text
    4. For an interesting history of monetary policymakers “looking through” inflation increases, see Nelson, Edward (2025). “A Look Back at “Look Through,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2025-037. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Return to text
    5. In what follows, I am focusing solely on the higher level of inflation expectations and not the higher level of inflation uncertainty. The level of inflation and uncertainty about inflation are highly correlated, so it is difficult to disentangle the effects separately. To see how these two effects can alter household behavior, see Dimitris Georgarakos, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Olivier Coibion, and Geoff Kenny (2024), “The Causal Effects of Inflation Uncertainty on Households’ Beliefs and Actions (PDF),” NBER Working Paper Series 33014 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, October). Return to text
    6. As documented in Nelson (2025), second round wage effects were a general concern of policymakers in the 1970s and 1990s when discussing oil price shocks or how to respond to changes in value-added taxes and exchange rate shocks. Return to text
    7. For a discussion of factors that were affecting inflation perceptions during the COVID pandemic, see David Lebow and Ekaterina Peneva (2024), “Inflation Perceptions during the Covid Pandemic and Recovery,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 19). Return to text

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Bougainville wants independence. China’s support for a controversial mine could pave the way

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna-Karina Hermkens, Senior Lecturer and Researcher, Anthropology, Macquarie University

    Bougainville, an autonomous archipelago currently part of Papua New Guinea, is determined to become the world’s newest country.

    To support this process, it’s offering foreign investors access to a long-shuttered copper and gold mine. Formerly owned by the Australian company Rio Tinto, the Panguna mine caused displacement and severe environmental damage when it operated between 1972 and 1989.

    It also sparked a decade-long civil war from 1988 to 1998 that killed an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 civilians and caused enduring traumas and divisions.

    Industry players believe 5.3 million tonnes of copper and 547 tonnes of gold remain at the site. This is attracting foreign interest, including from China.

    Australia views Bougainville as strategically important to “inner security arc”. The main island is about 1,500 kilometres from Queensland’s Port Douglas.

    Given this, the possibility of China’s increasing presence in Bougainville raises concerns about shifting allegiances and the potential for Beijing to exert greater influence over the region.

    Australia’s tangled history in Bougainville

    Bougainville is a small island group in the South Pacific with a population of about 300,000. It consists of two main islands: Buka in the north and Bougainville Island in the south.

    Bougainville has a long history of unwanted interference from outsiders, including missionaries, plantation owners and colonial administrations (German, British, Japanese and Australian).

    Two weeks before Papua New Guinea received its independence from Australia in 1975, Bougainvilleans sought to split away, unilaterally declaring their own independence. This declaration was ignored in both Canberra and Port Moresby, but Bougainville was given a certain degree of autonomy to remain within the new nation of PNG.

    The opening of the Panguna mine in the 1970s further fractured relations between Australia and Bougainville. Landowners opposed the environmental degradation and limited revenues they received from the mine. The influx of foreign workers from Australia, PNG and China also led to resentment. Violent resistance grew, eventually halting mining operations and expelling almost all foreigners.

    Under the leadership of Francis Ona, the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) fought a long civil war to restore Bougainville to Me’ekamui, or the “Holy Land” it once was.

    Australia supported the PNG government’s efforts to quell the uprising with military equipment, including weapons and helicopters.

    After the war ended, Australia helped broker the Bougainville Peace Agreement in 2001. Although aid programs have since begun to heal the rift between Australia and Bougainville, many Bougainvilleans feel Canberra continues to favour PNG’s territorial integrity.

    In 2019, Bougainvilleans voted overwhelmingly for independence in a referendum. Australia’s response, however, was ambiguous.

    Despite a slow and frustrating ratification process, Bougainvilleans remain adamant they will become independent by 2027.

    As Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama, a former BRA commander, told me in 2024:

    We are moving forward. And it’s the people’s vision: independence. I’m saying, no earlier than 2025, no later than 2027. My benchmark is 2026, the first of September. I will declare. No matter what happens. I will declare independence on our republican constitution.

    Major issues to overcome

    Bougainville leaders see the reopening of Panguna mine as key to financing independence. Bougainville Copper Limited, the Rio Tinto subsidiary that once operated the mine, backs this assessment.

    The Bougainville Autonomous Government has built its own gold refinery and hopes to create its own sovereign wealth fund to support independence. The mine would generate much-needed revenue, infrastructure and jobs for the new nation.

    But reopening the mine would also require addressing the ongoing environmental and social issues it has caused. These include polluted rivers and water sources, landslides, flooding, chemical waste hazards, the loss of food security, displacement, and damage to sacred sites.

    Many of these issues have been exacerbated by years of small-scale alluvial mining by Bougainvilleans themselves, eroding the main road into Panguna.

    Some also worry reopening the mine could reignite conflict, as landowners are divided about the project. Mismanagement of royalties could also stoke social tensions.

    Violence related to competition over alluvial mining has already been increasing at the mine.

    More broadly, Bougainville is faced with widespread corruption and poor governance.

    The Bougainville government cannot deal with these complex issues on its own. Nor can it finance the infrastructure and development needed to reopen the mine. This is why it’s seeking foreign investors.

    Open for business

    Historically, China has a strong interest in the region. According to Pacific researcher Anna Powles, Chinese efforts to build relationships with Bougainville’s political elite have increased over the years.

    Chinese investors have offered development packages contingent on long-term mining revenues and Bougainville’s independence. Bougainville is showing interest.

    Patrick Nisira, the minister for commerce, trade, industry and economic development, said last year the proposed Chinese infrastructure investment is “aligning perfectly with Bougainville’s nationhood aspirations”.

    The government has also reportedly made overtures to the United States, offering a military base in Bougainville in return for support reopening the mine.

    Given American demand for minerals, Bougainville could very well end up in the middle of a battle between China and the US over influence in the new nation, and thus in our region.

    Which path will Bougainville and Australia take?

    There is support in Bougainville for a future without large-scale mining. One minister, Geraldine Paul, has been promoting the islands’ booming cocoa industry and fisheries to support an independent Bougainville.

    The new nation will also need new laws to hold the government accountable and protect the people and culture of Bougainville. As Paul told me in 2024:

    […]the most important thing is we need to make sure that we invest in our foundation and that’s building our family and culture. Everything starts from there.

    What happens in Bougainville affects Australia and the broader security dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. With September 1 2026 just around the corner, it is time for Australia to intensify its diplomatic and economic relationships with Bougainville to maintain regional stability.

    Anna-Karina Hermkens receives funding from the Australian Research Council to follow and analyse Bougainville’s journey towards independence.

    – ref. Bougainville wants independence. China’s support for a controversial mine could pave the way – https://theconversation.com/bougainville-wants-independence-chinas-support-for-a-controversial-mine-could-pave-the-way-254320

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Your smartphone is a parasite, according to evolution

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachael L. Brown, Director of the Centre for Philosophy of the Sciences and Associate Professor of Philosophy, Australian National University

    vchal/shutterstock, The Conversation

    Head lice, fleas and tapeworms have been humanity’s companions throughout our evolutionary history. Yet, the greatest parasite of the modern age is no blood-sucking invertebrate. It is sleek, glass-fronted and addictive by design. Its host? Every human on Earth with a wifi signal.

    Far from being benign tools, smartphones parasitise our time, our attention and our personal information, all in the interests of technology companies and their advertisers.

    In a new article in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, we argue smartphones pose unique societal risks, which come into sharp focus when viewed through the lens of parasitism.

    What, exactly, is a parasite?

    Evolutionary biologists define a parasite as a species that benefits from a close relationship with another species – its host – while the host bears a cost.

    The head louse, for example, is entirely dependent on our own species for its survival. They only eat human blood, and if they become dislodged from their host, they survive only briefly unless they are fortunate enough to fall onto another human scalp. In return for our blood, head lice give us nothing but a nasty itch; that’s the cost.

    Smartphones have radically changed our lives. From navigating cities to managing chronic health diseases such as diabetes, these pocket-sized bits of tech make our lives easier. So much so that most of us are rarely without them.

    Yet, despite their benefits, many of us are hostage to our phones and slaves to the endless scroll, unable to fully disconnect. Phone users are paying the price with a lack of sleep, weaker offline relationships and mood disorders.

    From mutualism to parasitism

    Not all close species relationships are parasitic. Many organisms that live on or inside us are beneficial.

    Consider the bacteria in the digestive tracts of animals. They can only survive and reproduce in the gut of their host species, feeding on nutrients passing through. But they provide benefits to the host, including improved immunity and better digestion. These win-win associations are called mutualisms.

    The human-smartphone association began as a mutualism. The technology proved useful to humans for staying in touch, navigating via maps and finding useful information.

    Philosophers have spoken of this not in terms of mutualism, but rather as phones being an extension of the human mind, like notebooks, maps and other tools.

    From these benign origins, however, we argue the relationship has become parasitic. Such a change is not uncommon in nature; a mutualist can evolve to become a parasite, or vice versa.

    Smartphones as parasites

    As smartphones have become near-indispensible, some of the most popular apps they offer have come to serve the interests of the app-making companies and their advertisers more faithfully than those of their human users.

    These apps are designed to nudge our behaviour to keep us scrolling, clicking on advertising and simmering in perpetual outrage.

    The data on our scrolling behaviour is used to further that exploitation. Your phone only cares about your personal fitness goals or desire to spend more quality time with your kids to the extent that it uses this information to tailor itself to better capture your attention.

    So, it can be useful to think of users and their phones as akin to hosts and their parasites – at least some of the time.

    While this realisation is interesting in and of itself, the benefit of viewing smartphones through the evolutionary lens of parasitism comes into its own when considering where the relationship might head next – and how we could thwart these high-tech parasites.

    A bluestreak cleaner wrasse at work cleaning the mouth of a goatfish.
    Wayne and Pam Osborn/iNaturalist, CC BY-NC

    Where policing comes in

    On the Great Barrier Reef, bluestreak cleaner wrasse establish “cleaning stations” where larger fish allow the wrasse to feed on dead skin, loose scales and invertebrate parasites living in their gills. This relationship is a classic mutualism – the larger fish lose costly parasites and the cleaner wrasse get fed.

    Sometimes the cleaner wrasse “cheat” and nip their hosts, tipping the scale from mutualism to parasitism. The fish being cleaned may punish offenders by chasing them away or withholding further visits. In this, the reef fish exhibit something evolutionary biologists see as important to keeping mutualisms in balance: policing.

    Could we adequately police our exploitation by smartphones and restore a net-beneficial relationship?

    Evolution shows that two things are key: an ability to detect exploitation when it occurs, and the capacity to respond (typically by withdrawing service to the parasite).

    A difficult battle

    In the case of the smartphone, we can’t easily detect the exploitation. Tech companies that design the various features and algorithms to keep you picking up your phone aren’t advertising this behaviour.

    But even if you’re aware of the exploitative nature of smartphone apps, responding is also more difficult than simply putting the phone down.

    Many of us have become reliant on smartphones for everyday tasks. Rather than remembering facts, we offload the task to digital devices – for some people, this can change their cognition and memory.

    We depend on having a camera for capturing life events or even just recording where we parked the car. This both enhances and limits our memory of events.

    Governments and companies have only further cemented our dependence on our phones, by moving their service delivery online via mobile apps. Once we pick up the phone to access our bank accounts or access government services, we’ve lost the battle.

    How then can users redress the imbalanced relationship with their phones, turning the parasitic relationship back to a mutualistic one?

    Our analysis suggests individual choice can’t reliably get users there. We are individually outgunned by the massive information advantage tech companies hold in the host-parasite arms race.

    The Australian government’s under-age social media ban is an example of the kind of collective action required to limit what these parasites can legally do. To win the battle, we will also need restrictions on app features known to be addictive, and on the collection and sale of our personal data.

    Rob Brooks receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    Rachael L. Brown 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. Your smartphone is a parasite, according to evolution – https://theconversation.com/your-smartphone-is-a-parasite-according-to-evolution-256795

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: With interest rates on the way down, could house prices boom? Here’s what research suggests

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Graham, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney

    Jenny Evans/Stringer/Getty

    With the Reserve Bank of Australia easing monetary policy, interest rates are on the way down.

    Already this year, mortgage pre-approvals had begun to rise, suggesting many aspiring home buyers are excited by the prospect of cheaper home loans.

    With further cuts expected before the end of the year, some economists are predicting we could be on the cusp of another house price boom. Lower interest rates enable people to borrow more and potentially spend more on homes, bidding up prices.

    So, how might the Reserve Bank’s actions affect home buying behaviour and the housing market more broadly? Research offers us some clues.

    How rates affect prices

    Research shows that when a central bank lowers its benchmark interest rate, mortgage interest rates usually follow suit.

    We saw this following the Reserve Bank’s May decision to cut rates. Australia’s big four banks immediately announced similar reductions in rates for new and existing borrowers.

    Lower rates reduce the cost of servicing a loan. This is a big deal for Australian home buyers, whose mortgages can be very large.

    With the average house price in Australia now hitting about $1 million, an 80% loan saddles the typical home buyer with $800,000 in debt.

    Back in March, the average interest rate on new mortgages was 6%. For the average million-dollar house, this implies a monthly repayment of around $4,796, using the standard formula for amortising loans.

    After the Reserve Bank cut the cash rate by 0.25 percentage points, this implies a new monthly repayment of $4,669 – $127 less. That’s a small, but surely welcome, relief for mortgage holders.

    Combined with the Reserve Bank’s prior rate cut in February, such borrowers are now saving more than $250 a month relative to the start of the year.

    Everyone can borrow more

    Lower rates can also improve the borrowing capacity of new home buyers.

    Before a bank issues a new mortgage, it weighs the ability of a borrower to service the loan. It does this by considering the amount of income they’ll have left over after meeting typical expenses.

    This is known as a borrower’s “net income surplus”, and the proportion of this that is used to service a loan is known as the “net surplus ratio”.

    The maximum ratio is capped at 90%, but the typical mortgage is lent against a ratio of less than 70%.

    If a household earns $100,000 per year and allocates 25% to expenses, it can afford $4,375 in monthly mortgage repayments at a 70% net surplus ratio.

    Given the previous interest rate of 6%, this maximum monthly repayment implies the household can afford to borrow $680,000. But after a 0.25 percentage point rate cut, this household can now afford a $695,000 home loan.

    And following the 0.50 percentage points of cuts we’ve seen since January, this household’s borrowing capacity is up by $30,000.

    Pulling up the ladder

    For an individual home buyer, this extra borrowing may be enough to secure that dream home. But the rate cut affects everyone at the same time, increasing the borrowing capacity of home buyers all over the country.

    All of this extra mortgage credit feeds housing demand, which is likely to pour more fuel into an already overheated market.

    Indeed, recent research indicates that a 0.25 percentage point cut in the cash rate will likely lead to a 1.5–2% increase in average house prices over the following one to two years.

    That’s an extra $20,000 on the current $1 million average home value.

    Research also suggests the impact of interest rates across local housing markets may be strongest where housing supply is tightest and houses are already more expensive.

    Mortgages get bigger

    While lower rates reduce the cost of a given mortgage, the average mortgage size needs to grow to keep up with higher prices.

    Recall that the monthly payment associated with an 80% loan on a million-dollar home at 6% interest was $4,796. If the interest rate falls by 0.25 percentage points but house prices rise by 2%, the new monthly payment is little changed, at $4,762.

    On top of this, the 20% down payment on that new home will now have increased – by $4,000.

    Rate cuts increase borrowing power, but this can put upward pressure on house prices.
    myphotobank.com.au/Shutterstock

    Is there hope for first home buyers?

    Despite the initial excitement of lower rates, aspiring home buyers may be disappointed to see the price of their dream home climb further out of reach. Some may end up no better off than they had been previously.

    Others might try to snap up a home before lower rates are completely priced in – motivated by a fear-of-missing-out (FOMO). Research suggests it can take a year or more before house prices peak following a rate change.

    And others still may decide to keep renting for the time being. Fortunately for them, recent research shows that changes in interest rates do not materially affect the rents that landlords charge their tenants.

    Finally, one option is holding savings in the stock market while they wait, perhaps diversified via exchange-traded funds, as these assets usually rise in value following an interest rate cut.

    It’s never a good idea to panic. It’s always important to think through your options before diving into the market. And remember, our discussion here is only for general information and is not intended to be financial advice. All investments carry risk.

    James Graham has received research funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and is a member of Sydney YIMBY.

    – ref. With interest rates on the way down, could house prices boom? Here’s what research suggests – https://theconversation.com/with-interest-rates-on-the-way-down-could-house-prices-boom-heres-what-research-suggests-257724

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Police aren’t properly trained for mental health crises – but they’re often the first responders. Here’s what works better

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Panos Karanikolas, Research officer, Melbourne Social Equity Institute, The University of Melbourne

    Rosie Marinelli/Shutterstock

    In an emergency, police are often the first called to the scene. But they are rarely equipped to deal with complex mental health crises.

    Following recent parliamentary inquiries and royal commissions there has been a push – led by researchers, advocates and some senior police officials – for a shift to a health-led and paramedic-first response.

    South Australia is one of a number of states trialling a program based on a “co-responder” model. This means trained specialists accompany police to some mental health call-outs in the community.

    So, how do co-responder programs work? And are they effective? Here’s what the evidence says.

    The current situation

    Mental health legislation in all states and territories gives police the power to use “reasonable force” to transport people who “appear to have a mental illness” to hospital to prevent harm.

    In most cases, this involves police taking people experiencing mental health crises to hospital emergency departments, without help from mental health clinicians or paramedics.

    Overburdened emergency departments have long wait times for mental health and are often inadequate at responding to people experiencing distress.

    Those who need mental health support may not need a hospital stay.

    One study found only one in five (23%) of those taken to emergency by police – usually after expressing intention to self-harm – were admitted.

    The strain on police resources is also significant. For example, in New South Wales, police now respond to triple zero calls about mental health crises in the community every nine minutes (in Victoria it’s every ten).

    Criminalising mental health

    The mere presence of police alone can escalate already heightened emotional situations.

    Police frequently lack training in mental health, with combative police culture and the militarisation of police training presenting significant problems.

    Police often acknowledge they are ill-equipped to intervene in a mental health crisis.

    Yet, about one in ten people who access mental health services have previously interacted with police.

    These encounters can be risky and even deadly.

    People who experience mental health issues are over-represented in incidents of police use of force and fatal shootings.

    Police involvement can also lead to the criminalisation of people with mental health issues and disability, as they are more likely to be issued with charges and fines or be arrested.

    Yet the main reason police take people to hospital is for self-harm or suicidal distress, and most are not deemed to be of risk to others.

    What do people with mental health issues want instead?

    In our research, conducted in 2021–2022, we interviewed 20 people across Australia who’d had police intervene when they had a mental health crisis.

    Those we spoke to often had multiple experiences of police call-outs over their lifetime.

    They told us excessive use of force by police had traumatising and long-term effects. Many were subject to pepper spray, tasers, police dogs, batons, handcuffs and restraints, despite not being accused of committing criminal offences.

    For example, Alex*, said:

    I was having an anxiety attack, and they pepper sprayed me. I had bruises all over my hands from the handcuffs they put on really roughly, even though I wasn’t under arrest. Then they took me to hospital.

    In our study, people with mental health issues said they would prefer an ambulance-led response wherever possible, without police attending at all.

    They also wanted to be linked to therapeutic and community-based services, including mental health peer support, housing, disability support and family violence services.

    What are co-responder programs?

    Co-responder programs aim to de-escalate mental health incidents, reduce the number of emergency department presentations and link people experiencing mental health crises with services.

    These programs, such as the one being trialled in South Australia, mean mental health clinicians (for example, social workers, counsellors or psychologists) attend some mental health incidents alongside police.

    Peer-reviewed research shows these kinds of responses can be effective when compared to traditional police-led interventions.

    An evaluation of a co-response program in Victoria found the mental health response was quicker and higher quality than when police attended alone.

    The success of programs in the United States and Canada shows many mental health crises can safely managed without police involvement, for example by addressing issues such as homelessness and addiction with health workers, and reducing the number of arrests.

    Limited by a lack of resources

    While the evidence shows co-responder schemes are valued by people with lived experience, they are often limited by under-resourcing.

    Co-responder programs are not universally available. Often, they do not operate after usual business hours or across regions.

    There is also a lack of long-term evaluations of these programs. This means what we understand about their implementation, design and effectiveness over time can be mixed.

    More broadly, the mental health sector is facing significant and ongoing labour shortages across Australia, posing another resourcing challenge.

    How can responses to mental health crises be improved?

    Last year, the final report from the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System recommended paramedics should act as first responders in mental health crises wherever possible, instead of police, diverting triple zero calls to Ambulance Victoria.

    However that reform has been delayed, with no indication of when it may be implemented.

    A 2023 NSW parliamentary inquiry also remarked on the need to explore reducing police involvement.

    Co-responder and ambluance-first models offer an improvement.

    But our research suggests people with lived experience of mental health issues want more than ambulances replacing the police as crisis responders.

    They need a mental health system that supports them and provides what they needed, when they need it: compassionate, timely and non-coercive responses.

    *Name has been changed.

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

    Panos Karanikolas is a member of the Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council (VMIAC). He received funding for this research from the National Disability Research Partnership as part of a partnership with VMIAC.

    Chris Maylea receives funding from the Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, and national and state legal aid commissions.

    Hamilton Kennedy 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. Police aren’t properly trained for mental health crises – but they’re often the first responders. Here’s what works better – https://theconversation.com/police-arent-properly-trained-for-mental-health-crises-but-theyre-often-the-first-responders-heres-what-works-better-257641

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Three years after the Jenkins report, there is still work to be done on improving parliament culture

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria Maley, Senior Lecturer in Politics, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

    Three and a half years ago, then-sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins’ Set the Standard report was handed to federal parliament, commissioned after Brittany Higgins’ allegations of sexual assault in Parliament House, which had shocked the public and politicians alike. Since then, work has been underway to implement its 28 recommendations.

    The report found unacceptable levels of sexual harassment, bullying and misconduct in parliamentary workplaces, and laid out a radical plan to create a standards regime. The plan would provide tools to deal with such conduct, and try to prevent it by changing the culture of parliament.

    In 2025, parliament’s implementation of the Jenkins review is due to be evaluated by an external independent reviewer. Have the recommendations been implemented? What are the prospects for continued reform of conduct in the parliamentary workplace? Will the election of an historic number of women into parliament create pressure for further reform?

    Action after the review

    On February 8 2022, the first sitting day of federal parliament after the Jenkins review had been handed down, both houses of parliament made an historic statement of acknowledgement and apology to the victims of misconduct in its workplace. It stated:

    We say sorry. […] This place and its members are committed to bringing about lasting and meaningful change to both culture and practice within our workplaces. We today declare our personal and collective commitment to make the changes required.

    Parliamentarians committed to implement all 28 recommendations of the Jenkins review. A cross-party body was created to lead the implementation process.

    Known as the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, it had members from both houses of parliament, ministers and legislators, Labor, the Coalition, the Greens and one independent parliamentarian. It worked hard for three years to design and put in place the rules and mechanisms laid out in the Jenkins review, before disbanding in September 2024.

    The magnitude of the changes parliament had to make should not be understated. Among many ground-breaking reforms, it involved developing codes of conduct and a body to enforce them by investigating complaints about breaches of the code.

    In February 2023, both houses of parliament agreed on codes of conduct. In October 2024, an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission was established to receive complaints, investigate and make findings about misconduct. There are seven commissioners, appointed from outside parliament, who are lawyers, former public servants, tribunal members and ex-ombudsmen. For the first time, there will be external independent review of parliamentarians’ conduct.

    An independent human resources body for the parliamentary workplace was also created, known as the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. These are huge achievements and represent historic reforms.

    In line with Jenkins’ recommendations, the taskforce committed to an external independent review of parliament’s implementation of the Jenkins report.

    But has it been effective?

    It is hard to evaluate new rules, systems and bodies that are in their infancy, but one part of the new standards architecture does not represent best practice. After the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission has completed an investigation of a parliamentarian’s conduct, made findings and recommended sanctions, it will hand its report to the privileges committee in each house.

    The privileges committees are made up of parliamentarians, almost exclusively members of the major parties. It is up to these committees to decide on any action to be taken. We won’t know if they depart from the commission’s recommendations, as standards commission reports are not public.

    In the United Kingdom House of Commons, which represents best practice in this area, independent investigation reports are handed to a parliamentary committee called the Committee on Standards. Half the members of that committee are MPs, but half are “lay members” – that is, appointed members of the community, including lawyers and HR professionals.

    The House of Commons established its standards regime in 2018, and has reviewed and improved it over time. Lay members were placed on the committee because it was evident MPs found it difficult to judge the conduct of their peers and struggled to hold them accountable.

    Unfortunately Australia’s new standards system leaves decisions in the hands of parliamentarians, without the corrective and robustness that members of the public would provide. Will the federal parliament continue to reform and reshape its arrangements if they prove not to be robust enough?

    Ongoing leadership is needed if parliament is to continue to address conduct issues, drive culture change and refine and develop its new standards regime. Some believe the culture of parliament has improved since the Jenkins review. Others disagree.

    There are still recommendations of the review that have not been addressed. These include developing a ten-year strategy to increase diversity in the workplace, establishing a health and wellbeing service in parliament, and introducing an alcohol policy. Now that the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce has disbanded, who will continue to advance the reform process?

    In October 2024, parliament decided to create a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards. Its functions include reviewing the operation of the new codes and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission.

    This committee should play a leadership role on conduct and culture issues, but its membership is tightly restricted. The government dominates positions and all members must also be members of the privileges committees. Presiding officers are not permitted to sit on the committee, despite their important leadership roles and responsibilities in parliament. Crossbenchers and independent parliamentarians are largely locked out of the committee (only two positions are reserved for them), despite the fact they have often been the leading voices calling for culture change.

    With the influx of many more women and new faces into the parliament after the election, there is an opportunity to press for continued reform and for membership of the joint committee to include diverse voices from across the parliament.

    In 2021 Maria Maley worked as a consultant to the Jenkins Review.

    – ref. Three years after the Jenkins report, there is still work to be done on improving parliament culture – https://theconversation.com/three-years-after-the-jenkins-report-there-is-still-work-to-be-done-on-improving-parliament-culture-257810

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia’s plan to protect its trade in war is flawed. We can’t do it with nuclear submarines

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Palazzo, Adjunct Professor in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at UNSW Canberra, UNSW Sydney

    If war breaks out someday between the United States and China, one of the major concerns for Australia is the impact on its trade.

    Our trade routes are long and exposed. Every year, thousands of merchant ships — bulk carriers, tankers, container ships and other types — visit Australian ports to deliver imported goods and pick up exports for delivery at distant ports.

    When a cargo ship of petroleum leaves the Persian Gulf for refining in East Asia, then sails for Australia, the total trip is approximately 20,000 kilometres. The ship passes through lonely stretches of sea and numerous choke points, such as the Strait of Malacca in Southeast Asia, often within range of missiles and other weapons.

    Such attacks could come from Chinese ships in the event of a war, or as we’ve seen in the Middle East with the Houthi rebels, they could also come from militants seeking to disrupt global shipping.

    Australia’s current defence strategy cites the security of our “sea lines of communication and maritime trade” as a priority. The aim is to prevent an adversary from cutting off critical supplies to our continent in a war.

    To achieve this, the government has embarked on the lengthy process of expanding the Royal Australian Navy surface and sub-surface fleet, including the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.

    As I explain in my forthcoming book, The Big Fix: Rebuilding Australia’s National Security, the problem with the government’s maritime plan is that it is built on a deeply flawed foundation and cannot deliver what it promises.

    A flawed maritime plan

    Defence documents insist on a need for the Australian Defence Force to be able to project naval power far from Australia’s shores in order to protect the nation’s trade. The presence of these warships would ostensibly deter attacks on our vital shipping.

    However, those who developed the maritime plan do not appear to have considered whether the merchant ships delivering this trade would continue to sail to Australia in the event of a war — presumably with China.

    The reality is that Australia’s A$1.2 trillion of exports and imports are carried in ships owned by non-Australian companies, flying foreign flags and largely crewed by citizens of other countries.

    Decisions about whether to continue sailing to Australia during a conflict would be made in overseas boardrooms and capitals. The Australian government has no leverage to force the owners of these ships to continue to service our continent. Australia’s national interests may well not be the paramount concern.

    Nor does the Australian government have the option to turn to Australian-flagged vessels. Australia’s shipping list contains only a handful of domestically owned and flagged cargo ships available in case of war.

    In fact, the biggest vessel (by length) that the government could take into service is the Spirit of Tasmania IV ferry.

    If all goes according to schedule, at some point in the 2040s, Australia will have at most 26 surface warships and perhaps eight nuclear-powered submarines the navy hopes to acquire through the AUKUS deal.

    Due to training and maintenance requirements, the total number of vessels available at any one time would be more on the order of ten.

    In other words, the government’s future maritime plan — costing hundreds of billion dollars — may result in just ten available ships at any given time to protect the nation’s trade over thousands of kilometres.

    What could work instead

    Fortunately, Australia has other options for safeguarding its trade that don’t necessitate the building of warships.

    Our first investment in security should be diplomatic. The government should prioritise its investment in diplomacy across the region to promote security, including trade security.

    Regional countries are best placed to secure the waterways around Australia, particularly from the most likely future threat: Houthi-like militants.

    The Australian government should also modernise its shipping regulations and include in the budget provisions for war-risk insurance. Such insurance could compensate owners for the potential loss of ships and cargoes as an inducement for them to sail to and from Australia during war.

    The government must also encourage greater investment in our national resilience. Currently, the biggest risk during a conflict is an interruption to the nation’s liquid fuel supply. We must greatly expand our on-shore reserves of fossil fuels in the short term, while initiating a nation-building project to electrify the economy in the long term. Electrification would eliminate a considerable vulnerability to national security.



    Read more:
    Fuel shortages and bare pharmacies: we need to talk about what a possible war with China could look like

    Additionally, the government should identify and subsidise vital industries, such as fertilisers and certain medicines, which are essential to the continued functioning of our society in the event of a war. This would reduce our reliance on imports of critical materials.

    Lastly, Australian industries, with the government’s assistance, should further diversify their trading partners to reduce over-dependence on one or two main destinations.

    Trade is undoubtedly important to Australia and the government is correct to protect it. But it is also true that not all security problems are best answered by the military.

    This is particularly important since the size of our planned fleet is obviously insufficient for the enormous task it will face. Either Australia invests in impossibly large numbers of warships or it takes a different path.

    The art of war requires a balance between the desired ends and the means to achieve them. This simple statement underpins the formation of all good strategy, which a state ignores at its peril.

    Unfortunately, in the case of the nation’s maritime plan, the ends and means are seriously out of whack. Instead of setting itself up for failure, the government needs to put aside its ineffectual maritime plan and choose the means that do align with the ends. Only then will it be possible to protect Australia’s trade.

    Albert Palazzo was the long-serving director of War Studies for the Australian Army.

    – ref. Australia’s plan to protect its trade in war is flawed. We can’t do it with nuclear submarines – https://theconversation.com/australias-plan-to-protect-its-trade-in-war-is-flawed-we-cant-do-it-with-nuclear-submarines-256557

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: LEADER JEFFRIES: “OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES CONTINUE TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN RUBBER STAMPS FOR TRUMP’S RECKLESS AND EXTREME AGENDA”

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

    Today, Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries appeared on CNN’s State of the Union with Dana Bash where he emphasized the unity of House and Senate Democrats in opposing the reckless Republican One Big Ugly Bill and serving as a check and balance on the out-of-control Trump White House.

    DANA BASH: Here with me now is the House Democratic Leader, Hakeem Jeffries. Thank you so much for being here this morning, sir. I want to start with that bill. You have vowed to keep the pressure on and stop it from becoming law. Obviously, you’re in the minority, same goes with Democrats in the Senate. How will you do that?

    LEADER JEFFRIES:     Trump’s One Big Ugly Bill narrowly escaped the House of Representatives, and we’re going to continue to press our case across the country, partner with Senate Democrats in making clear to the American people the type of damage that this bill would do if it ever became law. This bill actually hurts everyday Americans in order to reward billionaires. It would strip away healthcare from approximately 14 million Americans. Premiums, copays and deductibles for tens of millions more will go up. Actually, if it ever were to be implemented into law, hospitals will close, nursing homes will shut down and people will literally die. At the same time, this bill represents the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history. It takes food out of the mouths of children, seniors and veterans, and all of this is being done in order to enact massive tax breaks for their billionaire donors like Elon Musk. And then they want to stick the American people with the bill, increase the debt by more than $5 trillion. So I expect that you’ll see strong Democratic opposition in the Senate, just like there was strong Democratic opposition in the House. And the bill just narrowly escaped the House of Representatives.

    DANA BASH: You made these arguments before it passed the House. Democrats are going to make that argument in the Senate, but again, you don’t have the votes, so what makes you think that what you’re saying will prevail and change the outcome?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: The bill is deeply unpopular. If you go back to where we were in 2017, where Republicans, after several failed attempts, finally got their effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act out of the House of Representatives, but it limped out of House and then failed in the Senate. I think the One Big Ugly Bill is setting up for a similar fate, but we can’t let our foot off the gas pedal.

    DANA BASH: I want to ask you about something that happened in your home state of New York. In the past couple of days, Congressman Jerry Nadler said that DHS agents entered his congressional office on Wednesday without a warrant and handcuffed a member of his staff. This, of course, comes after the Trump Justice Department charged Democratic Congresswoman LaMonica McIver with obstructing ICE agents after an altercation at a facility in Newark, New Jersey. Now, I know you previously warned that the administration charging Members of Congress was a, quote, red line. What are you doing now that the red line you talked about has apparently been crossed?

    LEADER JEFFRIES:     Well, let me make clear that the House is a separate and co-equal branch of government, the Congress. We don’t work for Donald Trump, we don’t work for the administration, we don’t work for Elon Musk, we work for the American people. And we have a responsibility to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch. That’s the constitutional blueprint that was given to us by the framers of the United States democracy that we have inherited over the last few centuries. And so, we’re going to continue to undertake our congressional responsibility, notwithstanding efforts by the Trump administration to try to intimidate Democrats. It’s unfortunate that our Republican colleagues continue to be nothing more than rubber stamps for Trump’s reckless and extreme agenda, and the American people, I think, will ultimately reject that next year when we will take back control of the House of Representatives. In the meantime, in terms of how we will respond to what Trump and the administration have endeavored to do, we will make that decision in a time, place and manner of our choosing, but the response will be continuous and it will meet the moment that is required.

    DANA BASH: What exactly does that mean? Have you not decided how to respond?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: We’ve publicly responded in a variety of different ways. We haven’t let our foot off the gas pedal in terms of additional things that may take place with respect to our congressional oversight authority and capacity. We will respond in a time, place and manner of our choosing if this continues to happen.

    DANA BASH:     You believe, as Jerry Nadler said, that the administration is trying to intimidate Democrats?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: I think the administration is clearly trying to intimidate Democrats, in the same way that they’re trying to intimidate the country. This whole shock and awe strategy, this flood the zone with outrageous behavior that they’ve tried to unleash on the American people during the first few months of the Trump administration is all designed to create the appearance of inevitability. But Donald Trump has learned an important lesson, the American people are not interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king. It’s the reason why Donald Trump actually is the most unpopular president at this point of a presidency in American history. The American people have rejected this approach, and we as Congressional Democrats will continue to reject this approach.

    DANA BASH: Mr. Leader, you brought up polls, so let me tell you about a new one that just came out here at CNN this morning. It shows that only 19% of Americans say that your party can get things done. 36% say the same about Republicans. And just 16% say your party has strong leaders. It’s pretty rough, and you are one of those leaders. How do you turn that around?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Yeah, we don’t have the presidency right now, so that’s always going to be challenging a few months after a presidential election. But we have to continue to make the case, one, that Democrats, of course, are the party that is determined to make life more affordable for everyday Americans, for hardworking American taxpayers, that we believe that we need to lower the high cost of living, which for decades has been going up while the size of the middle class has been going down. So, understandably, there’s real frustration amongst the American people. They should be frustrated. Housing costs are too high, childcare costs—

    DANA BASH: But they’re frustrated with you as well, with Democrats as well.

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Of course, they’re frustrated with the system. But what is interesting, Dana, I think you’re aware of this, every single public poll that has come out since the Trump presidency has had congressional Democrats winning the generic ballot against congressional Republicans. And in fact, we know this is not simply speculative, in every single high-profile special election, Iowa in January, New York in February, Pennsylvania in March, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court race in April and most recently in Omaha, the mayor’s race in May, Democrats have won. So the American people are actually being very clear and decisive in saying who they trust more to govern.

    DANA BASH: We’re gonna have to leave it there. Hakeem Jeffries, the Leader of the House Democrats. Appreciate you being here this morning.

    Full remarks can be watched here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Great Outdoors Month

    Source: US State of Alaska Governor

    WHEREAS, Alaska is known for its expansive landscapes, and people from around the world come to experience the magnificent views and diverse wildlife the Last Frontier has to offer; and

    WHEREAS, throughout Alaska’s changing seasons, an abundance of recreational activities are enjoyed by residents and visitors, from big game hunting and sport fishing, to skiing, hiking, sled dog mushing, and much more; and

    WHEREAS, Alaska is not only home to more than 700,000 people, it is also home to over 1,000 various vertebrate species, including approximately 100,000 black bear, 30,000 brown bear, and 750,000 wild caribou; and

    WHEREAS, Alaska is also home to many ecosystems, ranging from coastal rainforests in the southern regions to arctic tundra and sea ice in the north; and

    WHEREAS, as our time is increasingly spent indoors and in front of screens, it is important to take every opportunity to participate in outdoor activities, and Alaska’s State and National parks, forests, coastlands, and other recreational areas help mitigate the adverse effects of inactivity; and

    WHEREAS, Alaskans play a vital role in caring for our natural spaces, and we demonstrate our dedication to maintaining our outdoor spaces for future generations by using our natural resources in a responsible manner and by educating our youth on the amazing wonders that surround us; and

    WHEREAS, Great Outdoors Month offers an opportunity to celebrate the importance of Alaska’s majestic mountains, pristine waters, and vast landscapes as we enjoy the opportunities that abound and cherish the memorable experiences of being outdoors with family and friends.

    NOW THEREFORE, I, Mike Dunleavy, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ALASKA, do hereby proclaim June 2025 as:

    Great Outdoors Month

    in Alaska and encourage all Alaskans to take advantage of opportunities to enjoy the great outdoor activities available in Alaska’s majestic wilderness.

    Dated: June 1, 2025

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Joint Statement from U.S. Senators Graham and Blumenthal on Visit to France

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) today made this joint statement on their visit to Paris, France. 
    “Congratulations to Paris Saint-Germain for winning the Champions league and making history. We learned firsthand that the French are good at soccer and have amazing endurance when it comes to celebrating. Also during our time in Paris, we had worthwhile meetings with France’s Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Finance and President Macron’s national security advisor, and a lengthy and productive phone call with President Macron. 
    “As authors of the bone-crushing Russia sanctions bill that now has 82 Senate cosponsors, we assured President Macron and his team that we believe Putin is playing games regarding peace and is actually preparing for a military offensive in the late summer or early fall. 
    “President Macron shares the view that Putin’s behavior demonstrates that he is not interested in peace. Macron is also very determined to unite Europe, working in coordination with the U.S., to change the calculation for Putin. Importantly, we all agreed that if China and India stopped buying cheap Russian oil, Putin’s war machine would grind to a halt. 
    “President Macron supports lowering the price cap for Russian oil, which will hit Putin in the wallet, and working with his team, he committed to try to deliver a forceful message to China and India regarding their financial backing of Putin’s war. It is our hope that Europe will move forward together on lowering the price caps, and join together to send a clear message to China and India that they must change their behavior. 
    “Europe and the United States are holding all the cards and can make meaningful efforts to change China and India’s behavior. 
    “We are also hopeful Europe will up their game regarding the seizure of frozen assets of those who are benefiting off of Putin’s illegal invasion. President Macron was very open to that idea. 
    “We also discussed Russia’s kidnapping of approximately 20,000 Ukrainian children over the course of the war.  President Macron has been a clear, moral voice against this barbaric kidnapping and other Russian atrocities. 
    “France has been terrific in supporting Ukraine. In many ways, this has been President Macron’s finest hour. 
    “We will be pushing the Senate to take action by using the expedited Rule 14 process to bring the sanctions bill to the floor. By the G7 summit, we hope to have sanctions put in place —  in coordination with Europe —  to deliver an unequivocal message to China. 
    “The theme of this engagement was that we appreciate President Trump’s earnest efforts to bring about peace and entice Putin to come to the table. It is our view Putin is not responding in kind, he is not interested in peace and that he plans to continue to dismember Ukraine. We appreciate that President Zelensky will send a delegation to Istanbul, which is a clear sign that he is earnestly seeking peace. Unfortunately, we believe Monday’s meeting will result in another demand by Russia that will be unrealistic. 
    “An end of the war that rewards Putin’s aggression will create a ripple effect around the world, which will be catastrophic in every corner. Bad actors will be emboldened, and those who want to align with the West will be deterred.
    “If we can have a just and honorable peace, it will reset the world in all the right ways. History is watching.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Chinese defense ministry criticizes Hegseth’s speech at Shangri-La Dialogue 2025-06-01 21:20:00 China’s Ministry of National Defense expressed strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition on Sunday to the United States defense chief’s speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – Ministry of National Defense

    China’s Ministry of National Defense expressed strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition on Sunday to the United States defense chief’s speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, which it said was filled with hegemonic logic and seriously provoked China’s sovereign rights and interests while distorting China’s policy positions.

    The ministry’s spokesman Zhang Xiaogang made these remarks in a statement responding to the US defense secretary Pete Hegseth’s speech at the high-profile security summit on Saturday.

    US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth arrives for a trilateral meeting between Japan, the US and Australia, at the Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore, May 31, 2025. [Photo/Agencies]

    The senior US official, in his speech, urged Asia-Pacific countries to increase their military spending to five percent of GDP to counter perceived threats from China in the region, including in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.

    Zhang said the US is accustomed to using the Shangri-La Dialogue to create disputes, incite confrontation, and seek its own interests.

    The US remarks were rife with deeply ingrained hegemonic logic and Cold War mentality, he said, underscoring that the speech seriously ignored the joint efforts of regional countries to maintain prosperity and stability and deviated from the common desire of countries worldwide for peace and development.

    The spokesman noted that the actions of the US are clear to the whole world.

    “For its own selfish interests, the US launches tariff wars and trade wars; forms ‘small circles’ and engages in bloc confrontation, causing deep concerns among countries; strengthens military deployments in the Asia-Pacific, rudely interferes in the internal affairs of other countries, and stirs up tensions,” Zhang said.

    Facts have repeatedly shown that the US, by going against the trend and acting willfully, will ultimately harm itself, the military official said.

    Zhang reiterated China’s position on the Taiwan question and the South China Sea issue.

    “The Taiwan question is purely China’s internal affair, and the US has no right to make irresponsible remarks, let alone attempt to use it as a bargaining chip to contain China,” he said.

    The People’s Liberation Army will resolutely safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity and firmly crush any “Taiwan independence” separatist plots and any external interference, Zhang said.

    “Our determination and will are rock-solid, and our capabilities and means are strong and reliable,” he said.

    Emphasizing that the South China Sea is one of the busiest and safest shipping lanes globally, he said China will continue to resolve disputes through dialogue and consultation with relevant countries, uphold territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in accordance with the law, and work with regional countries to build a sea of peace, friendship, and cooperation.

    The US, fearing no chaos in the South China Sea, forms cliques and stirs up trouble, posing the greatest threat to regional peace and stability, Zhang said.

    The spokesman said that China has always been a defender and builder of peace and development in the Asia-Pacific.

    The Chinese military will work with regional countries to jointly oppose hegemonism that harms the Asia-Pacific, prevent geopolitical conflicts from being introduced into the region, and oppose any country or force that creates trouble here, he stressed.

    “We will actively pursue the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind and the three major global initiatives, working together to maintain long-term peace, stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific,” said Zhang.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: PNG faces deadline for fixing issues with money laundering and terrorist financing

    ANALYSIS: By Scott Waide, RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent

    Papua New Guinea has five months remaining to fix its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) systems or face the severe repercussions of being placed on the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) “grey list”.

    The FATF has imposed an October 2025 deadline, and the government is scrambling to prove its commitment to global partners.

    Speaking in Parliament, Prime Minister James Marape said Treasury Minister, Ian Ling-Stuckey had been given the responsibility to lead a taskforce to fix PNG’s issues associated with money laundering and terrorist financing.

    “I summoned all agency heads to a critical meeting last week giving them clear direction, in no uncertain terms, that they work day and night to avert the possibility of us getting grey listed,” Marape said.

    “This review comes around every five years.

    “We have only three or four areas that are outstanding that we must dispatch forthwith.”

    PNG is no stranger to the FATF grey list, having been placed under increased monitoring in 2014 before successfully being removed in 2016.

    Deficiencies highlighted
    However, a recent assessment by the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) highlighted ongoing deficiencies, particularly in the effectiveness of PNG’s AML/CTF regime.

    While the country has made strides in establishing the necessary laws and regulations (technical compliance), the real challenge lies in PNG’s implementation and enforcement.

    The core of the problem, according to analysts, is a lack of effective prosecution and punishment for money laundering and terrorism financing.

    High-risk sectors such as corruption, fraud against government programmes, illegal logging, illicit fishing, and tax evasion, remain largely unchecked by successful legal actions.

    Capacity gaps within key agencies like the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary and the Office of the Public Prosecutor have been cited as significant hurdles.

    Recent drug hauls have also highlighted existing flaws in detection in the country’s financial systems.

    The implications of greylisting are far-reaching and potentially devastating for a developing nation like PNG, which is heavily reliant on foreign investment and international financial flows.

    Impact on economy
    Deputy Opposition leader James Nomane warned in Parliament that greylisting “will severely affect the economy, investor confidence, and make things worse for Papua New Guinea with respect to inflationary pressures, the cost of imports, and a whole host of issues”.

    If PNG is greylisted, the immediate economic fallout could be substantial. It would signal to global financial institutions that PNG carries a heightened risk for financial crimes, potentially leading to a sharp decline in foreign direct investment.

    Critical resource projects, including Papua LNG, P’nyang LNG, Wafi-Golpu, and Frieda River Mines, could face delays or even be halted as investors become wary of the increased financial and reputational risks.

    Beyond investment, the cost of doing business in PNG could also rise. International correspondent banks, vital conduits for cross-border transactions, may de-risk by cutting ties or scaling back operations with PNG financial institutions.

    This “de-risking” could make it more expensive and complex for businesses and individuals alike to conduct international transactions, leading to higher fees and increased scrutiny.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI China: Growing appetite drives up exports of zongzi

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

    Traditional sticky rice dumplings — better known as zongzi, a favorite dish during Dragon Boat Festival — are enjoying booming popularity abroad, with exports seeing strong double-digit growth this year from Shenzhen, Guangdong province.

    According to Shenzhen Customs, more than 157 metric tons of zongzi have been exported from the city since January, up 95.2 percent year-on-year, showing that the overseas appetite for this festive favorite is growing fast.

    Zhu Danpeng, an independent food and beverage analyst, said that as China’s global influence grows, overseas Chinese are feeling a deeper connection to their roots.

    “Zongzi isn’t just a festive food, it’s a symbol of cultural identity and nostalgia,” Zhu said. “Occasions such as Dragon Boat Festival are becoming even more meaningful abroad. This trend speaks not only to growing cultural influence, but also the rising confidence among overseas Chinese in the safety, quality and value of Chinese food products.”

    Traditionally, Shenzhen-made zongzi were sent mostly to Hong Kong and Macao. But that’s changing quickly. Orders have started flowing in from more markets, including Singapore, the Netherlands and the United States, as international consumers show more interest in Chinese holiday foods, according to Shenzhen Customs.

    Although classic fillings like salted egg yolk and pork still dominate, manufacturers in Shenzhen are getting more creative. Red bean paste, seafood and even fruits are now part of the mix, catering to more adventurous eaters. Zongzi fillings are also being exported on their own, opening up even more international business opportunities.

    At Santa Ana Bakery, in Shenzhen’s Bao’an district, its employees were busy wrapping and steaming zongzi for global shipments.

    “Our export orders are up 14 percent this year compared with last year,” said Wan Yingfang, a manager at the bakery. “Production started earlier, as demand was rising.”

    Meanwhile, Shenzhen Customs has stepped up efforts to facilitate exports of the festive favorite.

    “Dragon Boat Festival exports are extremely time-sensitive,” said Yao Bing, an official at Tongle division of Shenzhen Customs.

    “As a result, we have dedicated staff to help manufacturers quickly get through inspections. We’ve also created a fast-track clearance channel and improved coordination at the ports.”

    Other cities in Guangdong are also joining the export wave.

    As of Tuesday, more than 150 tons of Dragon Boat Festival-related foods, including zongzi, had been exported from cities such as Guangzhou, Foshan and Zhaoqing, according to Chinanews.com.

    These products not only bring comfort to overseas Chinese communities, but also help share a taste of Chinese culture with a wider global audience, said Zhu, the food and beverage analyst.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Hainan Free Trade Port to begin independent customs operations by end of 2025

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

    Hainan Free Trade Port to begin independent customs operations by end of 2025

    Updated: June 1, 2025 08:40 Xinhua
    This drone photo taken on May 27, 2025 shows a view of the Yangpu International Container Port in the Yangpu Economic Development Zone in Danzhou, south China’s Hainan Province. In June 2020, China released a master plan to build the whole of Hainan Island into a globally influential and high-level free trade port by the middle of the century. Series of opening-up policies have been issued to create a “foreign investor-friendly” business environment in Hainan. Local immigration authorities have implemented measures, such as the utilization of one-stop customs clearance service, to improve the customs clearance efficiency and to reduce the operational costs of enterprises. As a key initiative in China’s opening-up strategy, the Hainan Free Trade Port is set to begin independent customs operations by year end, and global enterprises are eyeing the vast opportunities that come with open trade. [Photo/Xinhua]
    This aerial drone photo taken on May 28, 2025 shows a container ship leaves the Yangpu International Container Port in the Yangpu Economic Development Zone in Danzhou, south China’s Hainan Province. [Photo/Xinhua]
    This aerial drone photo shows a Japanese fishing vessel loads juvenile fish in waters near Wanning, south China’s Hainan Province, May 15, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
    This aerial drone photo taken on May 28, 2025 shows a view of the Yangpu International Container Port in the Yangpu Economic Development Zone in Danzhou, south China’s Hainan Province. [Photo/Xinhua]
    This photo taken on May 28, 2025 shows a view of the Yangpu International Container Port in the Yangpu Economic Development Zone in Danzhou, south China’s Hainan Province. [Photo/Xinhua]
    Immigration officers process border entry procedures for passengers of an international cruise ship in Sanya, south China’s Hainan Province, Jan. 3, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Dragon Boat Festival celebrated across China

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

    Dragon Boat Festival celebrated across China

    Updated: June 1, 2025 07:54 Xinhua
    Children try their hands at making zongzi, a traditional Chinese food to mark the Dragon Boat Festival, at a nature education base in Xiaochang Township of Zunhua City, north China’s Hebei Province, on May 30, 2025. The Dragon Boat Festival, also known as Duanwu Festival, is a traditional Chinese holiday to commemorate ancient Chinese poet Qu Yuan from the Warring States Period (475-221 B.C.). Celebrated on the fifth day of the fifth month of the Chinese lunar calendar, the festival falls on May 31 this year. [Photo/Xinhua]
    A drone photo taken on May 31, 2025 shows a scene at a seafood communal feast during a celebration of the Dragon Boat Festival at Chengshantou scenic area in Rongcheng City, east China’s Shandong Province. [Photo/Xinhua]
    An aerial drone photo taken on May 31, 2025 shows dragon boats rallied by the banks of Jialing River in Langzhong City, southwest China’s Sichuan Province. [Photo/Xinhua]
    An aerial drone photo taken on May 31, 2025 shows teams compete in a dragon boat race on the Songhua River in Harbin, northeast China’s Heilongjiang Province. [Photo/Xinhua]
    Villagers stage a traditional folk performance for tourists during a celebration of the Dragon Boat Festival in Tonglu County of Hangzhou City, east China’s Zhejiang Province, on May 31, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
    A dragon dance team performs for tourists during a celebration of the Dragon Boat Festival at the Mingsha Mountain and Crescent Spring scenic area in Dunhuang, northwest China’s Gansu Province, on May 31, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Focus on unruly tenants brushes up behaviour

    Source: New Zealand Government

    A Government directive to take firmer action against abusive Kāinga Ora tenants has led to consequences for threatening and abusive behaviour, and improved tenant behaviour as a result, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says.

    In March 2024, Ministers instructed Kāinga Ora to end its Sustaining Tenancies Framework, which had allowed tenants to stay living in a Kāinga Ora home no matter how abusive or disruptive their behaviour.

    “Living in a taxpayer-funded social house is a privilege. The vast majority of social housing tenants are respectful of their home and courteous to their neighbours, but unfortunately they are let down by a small minority who threaten and abuse their neighbours or wilfully damage their home. Our Government campaigned on focussing in on these unruly tenants, and new data shows our approach is leading to improved behaviour,” Mr Potaka says.

    “Over the past 10 months, 63 tenancies have been terminated for abusive, threatening, or persistent disruptive behaviour. This compares to 11 tenancies being ended for disruptive behaviour in the previous financial year, and only two in the financial year before that under the previous Government.

    “Formal warnings for tenants whose behaviour is putting their tenancy at risk have increased by more than 600 per cent compared to the previous financial year, with 1,463 being issued in 2024/25 so far. 

    “Around 80 per cent of warnings – known as section 55a notices – have been first notices and 18 per cent were second notices. Third notices, which can trigger the end of a tenancy, made up just two per cent of warnings.

    “I’m also pleased to see that the time taken to address complaints to Kāinga Ora about tenant behaviour has reduced significantly. In January 2024 it took an average of 60 days to take action in response to a complaint. In April 2025 it had reduced to less than 12 days.

    “This data shows that the vast majority of disruptive tenants are taking the notices seriously and changing their behaviour to prevent receiving a second or third notice. And where they don’t change their behaviour, we’re no longer putting up with it.

    “There are whānau who have been living in angst from their neighbours abusing the privilege of a taxpayer funded home, so we’ve taken swift action to get on top of it.

    “The Government is taking an approach that ultimately benefits everyone involved, by reducing negative behaviour through formal warnings and following through with real consequences in the rare circumstances that behaviour doesn’t improve.

    “I thank Kāinga Ora staff for their work to improve tenant behaviour, particularly noting that in doing so they have to navigate some very challenging situations. We look forward to further improvements in this space.”

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Jayapal, Randall, Dexter Conduct Unannounced Oversight Visit at Northwest Detention Center 

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (7th District of Washington)

    TACOMA, WA — Today, Congresswomen Emily Randall (WA-06), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), and Maxine Dexter, M.D. (OR-03) conducted an unannounced Congressional oversight visit at the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC). 

    Officials at the detention center allowed the Members to tour the facility one hour after they arrived. Despite repeated attempts, the Members were only permitted to meet with two detained individuals, which raises concerns over the medical care and legal counsel available in this detention center.

    This visit follows a troubling pattern: recent ICE raids targeting labor leaders, multiple reports over the past few years citing poor compliance with medical and sanitary standards at the facility, and actions by the Trump Administration that undermine Congressional oversight authority.

    Following the visit, the Members and Roxana Norouzi, Executive Director of OneAmerica, addressed members of the press to share their experience. 

    “Today was a stark reminder of the pain, chaos, and confusion caused at the hands of Donald Trump — and what happens when policy is developed from a source of hate, instead of fact,” said Congresswoman Randall, a member of the House Oversight Committee. “The American people are being told one thing, but my eyes saw another: the people inside this facility are our neighbors, people who we would see in the community, parents, and siblings. We spoke with a legal permanent resident who is being detained on a 20 year old crime for which he served his time. This is an injustice, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s being funded on the backs of taxpayers. We must continue to show up — unannounced — and demand answers.” 

    “Today I visited the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma for an unannounced inspection. While I am disappointed that the facility staff would not allow me to speak with more detained individuals, I was able to speak with two detained persons,” said Congresswoman Jayapal, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement. “One woman has been in this country for 20 years and was detained less than a week before she was to be married to a U.S. citizen. Another man has been here 31 years as a legal permanent resident, is a proud member of the Machinists Union, and is married to a U.S. citizen with three U.S. citizen children. These individuals could not understand why they were in detention, why this country they live is treating them this way, and they fear terribly for their families. I remain incredibly concerned about the entire immigration detention system, which is supposed to be a civil system but is instead functioning as a massive for-profit prison that utilizes billions of taxpayer dollars to jail people who should not be there. It is being weaponized by the Trump administration to carry out mass disappearances and deportations of people of all statuses like the lawful permanent residents held in this facility and undocumented immigrants who are married to US citizens — many of whom are not ‘the worst of the worst’ like Trump said he would go after, but instead are people who were contributing members of our community. I will continue to conduct this oversight and work to build a humane and fair immigration system that benefits Americans while protecting the rights of all  immigrants.”

    “Donald Trump is lying to the American people. He is dehumanizing immigrants who came here for a better life—only to face cruelty and injustice—funded by your tax dollars. Inside the Northwest Detention Center, we were not allowed to speak with or see most individuals detained here, and that should concern every one of us. What are they hiding?” said Congresswoman Dexter (OR-03), a critical care and lung physician. “Trump is detaining our neighbors, coworkers, and loved ones without guaranteed due process and no accountability. That’s not American; that’s authoritarianism.” 

    “No matter where we come from, the color of our skin, or our immigration status we all deserve to live in a country where our families are together, where we feel safe, and where our rights are upheld. Unfortunately, we are witnessing attacks on immigrants and working people across the country that are violating these core values,” said Roxana Norouzi, Executive Director of OneAmerica. “This Administration has pushed the limits of their executive power, snatching, and disappearing our neighbors, coworkers, and loved ones – detaining them in centers like this one. At times, with no due process and no accountability. We want to ensure our community members who are detained are treated humanely. They need access to legal counsel and, at a minimum, to understand the immigration process while detained. Our legal system requires fairness and respect for due process, with increased transparency and accountability of for-profit detention centers like this one.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –