Category: Justice

  • MIL-OSI: Hola Prime Expands into On-Exchange Cryptos, Bringing Centralized Exchange Access to Crypto Traders

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NEW YORK, NY, April 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Hola Prime, a leading prop trading firm, has been steadily climbing the charts of popularity and is set for further expansion. Hola Prime is introducing on-exchange cryptocurrency trading, giving traders direct access to Centralized Exchange-sourced pricing and a deep liquidity pool. The move underscores Hola Prime’s commitment to transparency and aims to address inefficiencies in the Forex CFD space where traders face very high spreads and get access to trade with only a limited choice of mainstream Cryptos.

    Unlike traditional asset classes, the On-Exchange cryptocurrency markets operate 24/7, offering traders around-the-clock opportunities to capitalize on price movements. However, trading cryptos often involves more funds due to extremely low leverages, and very high risks due to price discrepancies. By integrating on-exchange access with Prop trading, Hola Prime ensures that traders get access to funds, are able to trade cryptos directly from the Exchange, without hidden markups or artificial spreads. Not just this, the leverage available on these cryptos will be higher than the traditional cryptos, because the feed comes directly from the Exchange.

    There will be a big list of 100+ cryptocurrencies available to trade, giving traders access to multiple altcoins. The firm’s model eliminates unnecessary intermediaries, allowing for tight spreads, faster execution, and deeper market access.

    The Evaluation models will be similar to that in their forex division, with both 1-Step and 2-Step options. Few of the major Cryptocurrencies shall continue to be offered in the forex division. However, the leverage available on these cryptos and other altcoins will be higher in the On Exchange crypto segment, have tighter spreads and hence improved risk management.

    Transparency has been a cornerstone of Hola Prime’s approach, and the firm is reinforcing this commitment through the Price Transparency Report. This report will compare Hola Prime’s crypto pricing with broader market benchmarks, ensuring traders have a clear comparison of Hola Prime’s pricing with industry Benchmarks.

    To further support traders, Hola Prime will also launch a Customised Performance Analysis Report for those who do not pass trading challenges. This breakdown will provide insights into trade execution, risk management, and areas for improvement, helping traders refine their strategies for future success.

    “Crypto trading is an increasingly important part of the global financial ecosystem, and it’s critical that traders have access to fair, transparent markets,” said Somesh Kapuria, CEO of Hola Prime. “By bringing institutional-level pricing and execution to the prop trading space, we’re ensuring that our traders can compete on a level playing field.”

    Sumedha Sharma, CFO of Hola Prime, added: “This isn’t just about adding another asset class. It’s about giving traders the best possible tools to succeed. Our goal is to remove unnecessary frictions, provide better data, and ultimately help traders make more informed decisions.”

    Hola Prime’s on-exchange crypto trading segment is set to launch soon, marking a significant shift in how prop traders engage with these digital assets in decentralized markets. This initiative will address many concerns of crypto traders, by bringing in greater transparency and efficiency in the crypto trading space.

    Social Links

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61565158992654&sk=about_contact_and_basic_info

    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/holaprime_global/

    YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtVEJa1Ml132Be7tnk-DjeQ

    LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/hola-prime/?viewAsMember=true

    X: https://x.com/HolaPrimeGlobal

    Discord: https://discord.gg/TJ7TcHPXBf

    Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/HolaPrime/

    Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/HolaPrime/

    Medium: https://medium.com/@social_46267

    Media Contact

    Company: Hola Prime

    Contact: Media Team

    Email: marketing@holaprime.com

    Website: https://holaprime.com/

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Australia: City pens three-year enterprise agreement

    Source: South Australia Police

    The City of Wanneroo’s support for the Australian Automation and Robotics Precinct (AARP) was officially renewed this year, with the City signing a three-year Enterprise Funding Agreement with CORE.

    City of Wanneroo Mayor Linda Aitken, CEO Bill Parker and CORE Innovation Hub Director Brodie McCulloch signed the agreement at the Wanneroo Business Association Sundowner in February, which brought together more than 60 local business representatives at the internationally recognised AARP.

    The $225,000 agreement with CORE will support the activation of the AARP in the Neerabup Industrial Area.

    Spread across 51 hectares the AARP was developed and is managed by DevelopmentWA, the State Government of Western Australia’s land development agency.

    The purpose-designed AARP allows local and global companies to enter the automation and robotics global megatrend set to transform entire sectors, with facilities for research and development, testing, training, as well as demonstrating automation, robotics, and zero emissions technology.

    City of Wanneroo Mayor Linda Aitken said beyond the strategic and economic returns AARP is expected to deliver for WA – an economic impact assessment placed its potential impact at $608m by 2030 – the City’s support furthers its focus on creating new and direct opportunities for local business and residents.

    “AARP’s presence in Neerabup Industrial Area enhances the City’s reputation as a place for innovative and strategic industries to locate, and outcomes will include more opportunities to work closer to home, particularly for those in professional and technical roles,” Mayor Aitken said.

    “In the immediate term, the agreement secures exclusive opportunities for City businesses to participate in AARP programs including AARP Start, AARP Community Coffee Series, AARP Sundowner Series and the Global Robotics and Automation Technology Showcase.

    “The City of Wanneroo is committed to facilitating the delivery of sustainable economic growth, enhancing social and environmental outcomes and enabling businesses to provide diverse, quality and rewarding local job opportunities. I encourage all local businesses to explore opportunities to engage with this internationally recognised innovation hub in the heart of Neerabup.”

    AARP National Robotics and Innovation Lead, Renu Kannu, said the agreement signalled confidence in AARP’s value to the State and its innovation sectors, while recognising the immediate value the facility delivers to local business. 

    “CORE is pleased to collaborate with the City of Wanneroo to provide comprehensive support services to local businesses, including tailored, needs-based support for new and existing businesses at the AARP,” Ms Kannu said.

    “AARP’s success will contribute to the City’s prosperity through uplift in property values, growth in strategic industries, developing an innovation cluster, and generating strategic employment. We appreciate the City’s three-year investment toward achieving these outcomes.

    “From co-working and private office space in a state-of-the-art building, along with access to dedicated testing and development sites and networking and connection events featuring industry relevant guest speakers, the AARP offers connection to an industry led ecosystem and world-class innovation infrastructure. We welcome all local business operators to take advantage of AARP’s many opportunities.” 

    For more information on AARP, visit www.theaarp.com.au

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Press Conference

    Source: US Department of Homeland Security

    Headline: Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Press Conference

    Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Press Conference
    felicia.brown
    Wed, 04/09/2025 – 09:01

    .blank-style{}
    .embed-youtube {
    position: relative;
    padding-bottom: 56.25%; /* – 16:9 aspect ratio (most common) */
    /* padding-bottom: 62.5%; – 16:10 aspect ratio */
    /* padding-bottom: 75%; – 4:3 aspect ratio */
    padding-top: 30px;
    height: 0;
    overflow: hidden;
    }
    .embed-youtube iframe,
    .embed-youtube object,
    .embed-youtube embed {
    border: 0;
    position: absolute;
    top: 0;
    left: 0;
    width: 100%;
    height: 100%;
    }

    DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons and Deputy Director Madison Sheahan announce the relaunch of the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office during a press conference April 9 at 1:30 p.m. Families who have lost loved ones at the hands of criminal aliens will also speak during the event.

    Watch on YouTube

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Second arrest made in relation to Kawerau homicide

    Source: New Zealand Police (National News)

    Attributable to Detective Senior Sergeant Paul Wilson, Eastern Bay of Plenty Area Investigations Manager:

    A second person has been arrested and charged with murder following the death of a man in Kawerau on 26 February.

    A 15-year-old male was taken into custody after Police executed a search warrant at an address in Otara, Auckland earlier today.

    He is due to appear in the Manukau Youth Court tomorrow, 11 April.

    Today’s arrest comes after a 21-year-old man was arrested and charged with murder on 27 March.

    The 21-year-old is due to reappear in the Tauranga District Court on 30 April.

    ENDS

    Issued by Police Media Centre

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Universities – North East of England has second highest level of deprivation out of all regions in the UK – Queen’s University Belfast

    Source: Queen’s University Belfast

    Deprivation levels in the North East of England are the highest of all regions in England, Scotland and Wales, new research by Queen’s University Belfast has found.

    In the UK more widely, Northern Ireland has the highest levels of deprivation.

    For the first time ever, researchers have been able to compare census data on deprivation by employment, education and health right across the UK.

    They found that Northern Ireland has the highest level of the most deprived areas in the UK, followed by the North East of England and the West Midlands.

    But the research also shows that London has the lowest level of self-reported health deprivation in the UK.

    Most deprived areas

    When the researchers looked at census data on the most deprived areas in the UK, they found that:

    • Northern Ireland has the highest level of the most deprived areas in the UK at 25 per cent
    • The North East of England has the second highest levels of deprived areas at 21 per cent
    • The West Midlands (England) has the third highest levels at 16.5 per cent.

    Health deprivation

    The researchers also examined data on health deprivation. This data was self-reported by those who responded to the 2021 census (2022 in Scotland).

    They found that:

    • Health deprivation is particularly high in Northern Ireland with nearly 28 per cent of areas ranked among the most deprived by poor health across the UK.
    • In Scotland, 23 per cent of areas were among the most deprived by poor health
    • This was the case for 16 per cent of areas in North East England.

    Levels of health deprivation were lowest in London, with just 1.5 per cent of areas ranked most deprived by poor health. The level was also low in the East of England at 2.65 per cent.

    Professor Christopher Lloyd from the School of Natural and Built Environment at Queen’s led the study. He explains: “Our research shows, for the first time, how deprivation by employment, education and health vary within and between the four nations of the UK.

    “This type of analysis is important for everyone in our society as it allows us to see how our local authority areas are affected by deprivation and how this compares to other areas in the UK.”

    He adds: “The insights are critical for informing public policy. Our study will allow policy makers to make a case for funding or to better direct resources given a knowledge of how their areas compare to other areas within their region, within their nation, or the UK as a whole.”

    The Queen’s researchers used 2021 census data from England, Wales and Northern Ireland and 2022 census data from Scotland. The project was funded by the Nuffield Foundation and the University of Leeds and deprivation.org were key partners.

    The full report and findings are available to download here: 

    The Nuffield Foundation is an independent charitable trust with a mission to advance social well-being. It funds research that informs social policy, primarily in Education, Welfare and Justice. The Nuffield Foundation is the founder and co-funder of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory. The Foundation has funded this project, but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation. Visit www.nuffieldfoundation.org

    MIL OSI – Submitted News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Man charged over alleged armed robbery at Invermay

    Source: New South Wales Community and Justice

    Man charged over alleged armed robbery at Invermay

    Thursday, 10 April 2025 – 2:19 pm.

    A 33-year-old Launceston man has been charged following a disturbance and an alleged armed robbery at Invermay yesterday.
    Police were called to Dry Street just after 10am Wednesday after reports a man had threatened members of the public while in possession of a metal pole, before stealing cash and property from a nearby business.
    Nobody was physically injured, and he was quickly arrested by police.
    The man was charged with armed robbery, assault a public officer, assault, resist a police officer, expose person, stealing, three counts of common assault, trespass and three counts of destroy property.
    He was detained to appear in the Launceston Magistrates Court tonight.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Cash and tobacco seized in Operation Eclipse raids

    Source: New South Wales – News

    Police have seized $1,572,000 worth of illegal tobacco and $444,000 in cash in raids on 31 premises in the Mid-North and Eyre Peninsula.

    Serious and Organised Crime Branch, members of the Local Service Areas with support of Consumer and Business Services searched 31 premises at Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Whyalla and Port Lincoln between 1 April and 3 April as part of Operation Eclipse.

    The locations searched included tobacconists, barber shops, gift shops, mini-marts, commercial storage facilities and residential premises.

    The searches resulted in the arrest of a man, 51, of Whyalla Playford for unlawful possession of $225,655 cash.

    Investigation is ongoing in relation to other seizures of cash and illicit tobacco.

    Operation Eclipse commander Detective Chief Inspector Brett Featherby said the regional seizures had significantly disrupted the activities of syndicates operating in those regional areas and enhanced our knowledge or their business model.

    “Organised crime syndicates operating in regional areas will be subject to a whole of SAPOL response to disrupt their criminal activity and financial operations,’’ he said.

    “SAPOL will pursue criminal charges when sufficient evidence exists and that includes those who are supporting and enabling that activity and take every opportunity to enforce the full extent of the confiscations legislation to seize assets of those involved.’’

    Operation Eclipse has so far resulted in 33 arrests for offences including blackmail, arson, money laundering and serious criminal trespass.

    There have been 179 premises searched – 47 residential, 119 businesses and 13 storage facilities – more than $2 million in cash, three firearms and almost $16.2 million in tobacco seized. 
    Significantly, there have been 366 calls to Crime Stoppers since October 2 that have resulted in information being provided to police.

    Commissioner for Consumer Affairs Brett Humphrey said the partnership between CBS and SAPOL had made a significant impact on the illicit tobacco and vape trade in South Australia.

    “Together, we are making inroads into the sale of illicit tobacco and vapes and we are taking this very seriously.

    “CBS will continue to work with other agencies focussed on reducing the illicit tobacco trade in South Australia.”

    Anyone with any information on criminal activities surrounding the sale of illicit tobacco is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or at www.crimestopperssa.com.au – you can remain anonymous.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hawley Hosts Facebook Whistleblower, Exposes Company’s Stunning Complicity with China

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo)

    Wednesday, April 09, 2025

    Today, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) chaired a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism featuring Facebook corporate whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams.

    Wynn-Williams was Facebook’s first director of public policy, leading the company’s outreach efforts around the world. She became a whistleblower when she exposed explosive details of her company’s long-term collusion with the Chinese Communist Party.

    Hawley said the company went “scorched earth” to keep her from telling what she knows, including suing her, slapping her with a gag order, and forcing courts to order her tell-all memoir, Careless People, removed from shelves.

    “This is a hearing that Facebook has tried desperately to prevent,” Hawley said.“Facebook is one of the most powerful companies in the world and they have stopped at absolutely nothing to prevent today’s testimony.”

    Senator Hawley asked Wynn-Williams to detail Meta’s relationship with the Chinese Communist Party and how they planned to store American user data in China, giving the CCP access to American data. 

    “This is exactly contrary to what Facebook has represented for years. [And] here they’re willing to build data centers [to] store data in China. They’re willing explicitly to give the Chinese government access to it,” Hawley said. “And if that means that American user data is also compromised, they’re willing to do that, too. All for profits in China. There was virtually nothing they weren’t willing to do.”

    Senator Hawley is a leading voice on the dangers of Big Tech and the need for accountability. He has called for Americans’ right to protect themselves from companies’ exploitive use of artificial intelligence, advocated for citizens’ ability to sue Big Tech, and exposed Big Tech as willing collaborators in censorship. Last year during a hearing, Senator Hawley forced Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to apologize to families of child exploitation victims.  

    Watch today’s full subcommittee hearing here. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Speech: Treaty Principles Bill, second reading

    Source: ACT Party

    Intro

    I move, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be now read a second time.

    Mr Speaker, members of this House, who’ve so far been so fortified against reason, can still change their minds and send this Bill onwards to a referendum of the people.

    I ask that Members listen carefully, to understand the choice they’d be denying the New Zealand people by opposing this Bill.

    Five decades ago the House passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act. Parliament said the Treaty had Principles. It did not say what they were, but nor are they going away.

    Even the National Party-New Zealand First commitment to review the Principles will not get rid of them. It will not touch the Treaty of Waitangi Act that gave us the Principles, and it will only ‘review’ them in other Bills. Review, that is, with the help of Te Puni Kokiri.

    With the elected Parliament silent on the Principles, the unelected judges, Waitangi Tribunal, and public servants have defined them instead. They say the Treaty is ‘a partnership between races.’ They say one race has a special place in New Zealand.

    The practical effects of the Partnership Principle

    In recent years the effects of these principles have become more and more obvious.

    We’ve seen a separate Māori Health Authority.

    We’ve seen Resource Management decisions held up for years awaiting Cultural Impact Assessments.

    We’ve seen half the seats governing three waters infrastructure reserved for one sixth of the population.

    We’ve seen public entities appoint two Chief Executives to represent each side of the so-called Partnership.

    We’ve seen a history curriculum that indoctrinates children to believe our history is a simple story of victims and villains.

    Some will say a Government can change these things, and indeed our Government is. Here’s the problem, though. Another Government can just as easily bring those policies back, because the bad ideas behind them were never confronted by most of the Government.

    That’s why we see professional bodies, Universities, the public service, and schools watering the divisive idea that the Treaty is a Partnership, hoping it will grow again.

    The Problem with the Partnership Principle

    The Partnership tells us that Kiwis should be ranked by the arrival time of their ancestors.

    We’ve seen it in recent weeks with the disgraceful attacks on my colleague Parmjeet Parmar for being a migrant who proudly chose this country. That the comments were made by the Dean of a Law School, who faced no consequences, shows how low our country has sunk.

    The idea that your race matters is a version of a bigger idea. It is part of the idea that our lives are determined by things out of our control. They may have occurred before we were even born. It’s a denial that we each can make a difference in our own lives, and have a right to do so.

    This kind of primitive determinism should have no place in New Zealand. We are all thinking and valuing beings with nga tikanga katoa rite tahi, the same rights and duties, just as te tiriti itself says.

    That’s why the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would finally define the Principles, in line with the Treaty itself, as giving equal rights for all Kiwis.

    The Principles Proposed by the Bill

    Let me read the proposed Principles. If anyone wants to vote against this bill, let them explain, specifically, why they oppose these principles.

    Principle 1

    The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws,—

    (a)   in the best interests of everyone; and

    (b)   in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.

    Principle 2

    (1)   The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it.

    (2)   However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

    Principle 3

    (1)   Everyone is equal before the law.

    (2)   Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—

    (a)   the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and

    (b)   the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.

    People should ask themselves, what is the best argument they have against these principles? Are they prepared to say that argument out loud? If not, perhaps they should support this Bill.

    The Select Committee Submissions

    I now turn to the submissions to the Select Committee. I’d like to thank the Chair and most members of the Committee. They heard eighty hours of submissions, a near record.

    Submissions are not a referendum. If MPs believe the Bill should be passed depending on public opinion, they should front up, vote for the Bill, and send it to an actual referendum.

    Many bills have attracted large numbers of opposing submissions, and yet been very popular with the general public. End of Life Choice and Abortion Law Reform both attracted 90 per cent opposition at select Committee, but proved overwhelmingly popular with the public.

    So it is with these principles. They are supported by the public by a ratio of two-to-one, but most of the public are too busy working productive jobs to submit on select committees.

    Select committees don’t tell us about numbers, but they can tell us about ideas. I believe the submission process has been very useful.

    Some argued against the Bill’s first principle, that this Parliament has the full power to make laws. They said that the chiefs never ceded sovereignty.

    What they cannot explain is how a society is supposed to work without clear laws that apply equally to all. The answer is that it does not and cannot work. Those people who believe a County or an Indian Band having limited jurisdiction in a limited territory is the same as shared sovereignty cannot be taken seriously.

    Still others argued that maybe Parliament can make laws, but it cannot make this law. What they’re really saying is that they’re happy for the unelected to decide the constitutional future of the country, but not this House of Representatives, and not the people in referendum.

    Those are fundamentally undemocratic propositions. Anyone opposing the Bill on those grounds is really saying they do not trust the New Zealand people to determine their future. I’m proud that my Party does.

    There were two objections that cancelled each other out.

    One said, the Bill isn’t needed because Māori don’t have special rights.

    The other said, the Bill is an abomination because it denies Māori special rights.

    Which one is it? The truth is we are all equal, deep down, but too many of our policies aim to treat people differently based on ancestry. That is why we should remove the idea that New Zealanders have different rights, ranked by the arrival of their ancestors.

    A more interesting objection is that Māori have group rights to such things as language and culture. Some Māori have been told that this Bill would take away their mana, their reo, their tikanga. That is deliberate, cynical misinformation by opponents of the bill.

    The truth is that all New Zealanders have culture, we all have language, we all have customs. Māori are not alone in those things. The proposed principle two says the Crown should uphold the rights of Māori, to the same extent it upholds the rights for all.

    It means if we’re going to have Divali, Lunar New Year, and the Highland games, of course we should also have Kapa Haka. That is a vision of a country where all cultures thrive.

    The same can be said for language. We have media in many languages, there’s no reason te reo Māori should not be available. The Bill provides for that, we just don’t need to divide the country into a partnership between races to do it.

    Other critics said the Bill must be wrong because the unelected bureaucracy said so. That misses the whole point of the Bill. If we wanted to be ruled by the unelected we could keep the principles they’ve dreamed up. The problem is they contradict equal rights and democracy.

    Finally, some critics said the debate is divisive. I say it has revealed division. It has revealed a sizeable minority of New Zealanders simply aren’t committed to equal rights and liberal democracy.

    Conclusion

    I want to end with a quote from a Jewish man who wrote a book in Christchurch while hiding from the Nazis. The Book is the Open Society and it’s Enemies, and it’s been described as the most important book ever written in New Zealand. His name was Sir Karl Popper and he said:

    The more we try to return to the heroic age of tribalism, the more surely do we arrive at the Inquisition, at the Secret Police, and at a romanticized gangsterism. Beginning with the suppression of reason and truth, we must end with the most brutal and violent destruction of all that is human. There is no return to a harmonious state of nature. If we turn back, then we must go the whole way—we must return to the beasts…

    But if we wish to remain human, then there is only one way, the way into the open society. We must go on into the unknown, the uncertain and insecure, using what reason we may have to plan as well as we can for both security and freedom.

    A free society takes hard work and uneasy conversations. I’m proud my party has the bravery, the clarity, and the patriotism to raise uneasy topics.

    I challenge the other parties to find those qualities within themselves and support this Bill so New Zealanders can vote on it at referendum.

    If they do not, one party will never give up on the simple idea that all Kiwis are equal, no matter when your ancestors arrived.

    We will fight on for the truth, that All Kiwis are Equal, AKE, AKE, AKE.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Crackdown on unregistered dogs: final infringement notices issued

    Source: Auckland Council

    As part of efforts to promote responsible dog ownership in the Auckland region, dog owners who have failed to register their pets despite multiple opportunities will now face Infringement fines.

    Auckland Council has issued final infringement notices, and those who do not pay within the next 28 days will have their fines transferred to the court.

    Chair of the council’s Regulatory and Safety Committee Josephine Bartley says there is a correlation between unregistered dogs and dogs allowed to roam off properties, and the number of attacks on people and other animals. 

    “As part of the focus from Auckland Council’s Animal Management team to curb roaming dogs and keep Aucklanders safe, we are cracking down on those dog owners who don’t take responsibility for their pets by registering them,” Bartley says.

    “Registrations help pay for the animal management services Auckland Council provide to get dogs off the streets, the prosecution of dog owners whose dogs have injured others, and the euthanising of these dogs.”

    Auckland Council’s General Manager of Licensing and Compliance Robert Irvine says the council has provided ample opportunities for dog owners to comply, but those who continue to ignore their obligations will now face the consequences.

    “The time for leniency has passed – it’s now a matter of fairness to those who do the right thing.”

    This marks the second phase of Auckland Council’s bulk infringement campaign.

    The initial round of infringement notices were issued 28 days ago, prompting many dog owners to settle their fines.

    A follow-up reminder letter was sent out last Friday (4 April) to those who have yet to pay. These individuals now have a final 28 days to make payment before their debt is handed over to the court system (or Ministry of Justice?) for enforcement.

    The infringement campaign has been effective in prompting compliance while also helping to make sure the council has the most up to date information for the dog and dog owner.

    “Auckland Council remains firm on ensuring compliance with dog registration requirements. Those who continue to disregard their obligations should be prepared for additional penalties,” says Mr Irvine.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Fresh details emerge on Australia’s new climate migration visa for Tuvalu residents. An expert explains

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane McAdam, Scientia Professor and ARC Laureate Fellow, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Sydney

    The details of a new visa enabling Tuvaluan citizens to permanently migrate to Australia were released this week.

    The visa was created as part of a bilateral treaty Australia and Tuvalu signed in late 2023, which aims to protect the two countries’ shared interests in security, prosperity and stability, especially given the “existential threat posed by climate change”.

    The Australia–Tuvalu Falepili Union, as it is known, is the world’s first bilateral agreement to create a special visa like this in the context of climate change.

    Here’s what we know so far about why this special visa exists and how it will work.

    Why is this migration avenue important?

    The impacts of climate change are already contributing to displacement and migration around the world.

    As a low-lying atoll nation, Tuvalu is particularly exposed to rising sea levels, storm surges and coastal erosion.

    As Pacific leaders declared in a world-first regional framework on climate mobility in 2023, rights-based migration can “help people to move safely and on their own terms in the context of climate change.”

    And enhanced migration opportunities have clearly made a huge difference to development challenges in the Pacific, allowing people to access education and work and send money back home.

    As international development expert Professor Stephen Howes put it,

    Countries with greater migration opportunities in the Pacific generally do better.

    While Australia has a history of labour mobility schemes for Pacific peoples, this won’t provide opportunities for everyone.

    Despite perennial calls for migration or relocation opportunities in the face of climate change, this is the first Australian visa to respond.

    As a low-lying atoll nation, Tuvalu is particularly exposed to rising sea levels.
    maloff/Shutterstock

    How does the new visa work?

    The visa will enable up to 280 people from Tuvalu to move to Australia each year.

    On arrival in Australia, visa holders will receive, among other things, immediate access to:

    • education (at the same subsidisation as Australian citizens)
    • Medicare
    • the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)
    • family tax benefit
    • childcare subsidy
    • youth allowance.

    They will also have “freedom for unlimited travel” to and from Australia.

    This is rare. Normally, unlimited travel is capped at five years.

    According to some experts, these arrangements now mean Tuvalu has the “second closest migration relationship with Australia after New Zealand”.

    Reading the fine print

    The technical name of the visa is Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement).

    The details of the visa, released this week, reveal some curiosities.

    First, it has been incorporated into the existing Pacific Engagement Visa category (subclass 192) rather than designed as a standalone visa.

    Presumably, this was a pragmatic decision to expedite its creation and overcome the significant costs of establishing a wholly new visa category.

    But unlike the Pacific Engagement Visa – a different, earlier visa, which is contingent on applicants having a job offer in Australia – this new visa is not employment-dependent.

    Secondly, the new visa does not specifically mention Tuvalu.

    This would make it simpler to extend it to other Pacific countries in the future.

    Who can apply, and how?

    To apply, eligible people must first register their interest for the visa online. Then, they must be selected through a random computer ballot to apply.

    The primary applicant must:

    • be at least 18 years of age
    • hold a Tuvaluan passport, and
    • have been born in Tuvalu – or had a parent or a grandparent born there.

    People with New Zealand citizenship cannot apply. Nor can anyone whose Tuvaluan citizenship was obtained through investment in the country.

    This indicates the underlying humanitarian nature of the visa; people with comparable opportunities in New Zealand or elsewhere are ineligible to apply for it.

    Applicants must also satisfy certain health and character requirements.

    Strikingly, the visa is open to those “with disabilities, special needs and chronic health conditions”. This is often a bar to acquiring an Australian visa.

    And the new visa isn’t contingent on people showing they face risks from the adverse impacts of climate change and disasters, even though climate change formed the backdrop to the scheme’s creation.

    Settlement support is crucial

    With the first visa holders expected to arrive later this year, questions remain about how well supported they will be.

    The Explanatory Memorandum to the treaty says:

    Australia would provide support for applicants to find work and to the growing Tuvaluan diaspora in Australia to maintain connection to culture and improve settlement outcomes.

    That’s promising, but it’s not yet clear how this will be done.

    A heavy burden often falls on diaspora communities to assist newcomers.

    For this scheme to work, there must be government investment over the immediate and longer-term to give people the best prospects of thriving.

    Drawing on experiences from refugee settlement, and from comparative experiences in New Zealand with respect to Pacific communities, will be instructive.

    Extensive and ongoing community consultation is also needed with Tuvalu and with the Tuvalu diaspora in Australia. This includes involving these communities in reviewing the scheme over time.

    Jane McAdam receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the expert sub-committee of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration.

    ref. Fresh details emerge on Australia’s new climate migration visa for Tuvalu residents. An expert explains – https://theconversation.com/fresh-details-emerge-on-australias-new-climate-migration-visa-for-tuvalu-residents-an-expert-explains-254195

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: A damning study of online abuse of female MPs shows urgent legal reform is needed

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Mudgway, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Canterbury

    Media Whale Stock/Shutterstock

    Women MPs are increasingly targets of misogynistic, racist and sexual online abuse, but New Zealand’s legal framework to protect them is simply not fit for purpose.

    Recently released research found online threats of physical and sexual violence have caused those MPs to feel fearful, anxious and distressed. Some included in the study said the harassment led to them self-censoring, using social media less often, and considering leaving politics early.

    But the current legal framework is not well equipped to address the nature or volume of the online harassment aimed at MPs.

    Serious online threats made by identifiable individuals can be criminal offences under the Crimes Act 1961. Similarly, the new stalking law, expected to pass later this year, will create some protection for women MPs from online harassers – as long as the stalker can be identified.

    Under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015), victims of online harassment can ask the court for protection from the person harassing them, which can include orders to stop all contact. But once again, police need to be able to identify the perpetrator.

    And that is the sticking point. Online abuse is usually committed anonymously and often by perpetrators using a VPN service that encrypts internet traffic and protects your online identity.

    Also, the Harmful Digital Communications Act was not drafted to deal with volumetric harassment – a coordinated effort designed to overwhelm and intimidate a target through a deluge online interactions.

    These campaigns typically involve a large number of participants who collectively flood someone with abusive, threatening or harmful messages. Reporting and attempting to take action on every single message or comment is simply not practical.

    Some women MPs told researchers the harassment led to them self-censoring, using social media less often and considering leaving politics early.
    Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

    The way forward

    Despite the challenges, there are some steps the government can take to improve the law to better protect MPs.

    Firstly, any new law needs to be fit for purpose. The technological landscape is very different now to when the Harmful Digital Communications Act was introduced in 2015.

    New Zealand should consider following the European Union’s example and criminalise inciting, aiding and participating in mob-style or mass online harassment campaigns. In the EU, the penalty for this can include imprisonment.

    Much of the online abuse originates on social media platforms. But unlike the United Kingdom and Australia, New Zealand does not currently regulate social media.

    In the UK, for example, the Online Safety Act 2023 makes social media companies legally responsible for user safety. Companies must minimise risk of harm (including online violence) when designing, implementing and using any technology on their platforms. Failing these legal duties will incur significant financial penalties.

    The UK’s framework shifts the burden of online safety off the shoulders of individual victims and places it on social media companies which are better positioned to remove harmful content and users swiftly. The rules also alter how new technology is implemented to better protect user safety.

    Dust off past proposals

    Under the previous Labour government, the Ministry of Internal Affairs proposed a new, independent regulatory body to promote online safety, with industry standards and codes of practice. The current coalition government scrapped the proposal last year, leaving New Zealand without a clear plan to address online harm.

    Political leaders should urgently reconsider the Internal Affairs proposal for social media regulation. But they should also go further.

    My research evaluating responses to online abuse in New Zealand, Australia and the UK has highlighted the importance of addressing underlying social and cultural causes of online gender-based violence.

    To effectively prevent online violence against women MPs, a new regulatory framework should require social media platforms to actively challenge and modify harmful gender stereotypes embedded in their services.

    This includes conducting comprehensive risk assessments during the design, development, deployment and use of their platforms.

    While the recent revelations about online abuse directed at women MPs makes for grim reading, it’s clear there are steps the government can take to ensure all MPs feel safe to participate in the political process.

    Cassandra Mudgway is a member of the NZ Labour Party.

    ref. A damning study of online abuse of female MPs shows urgent legal reform is needed – https://theconversation.com/a-damning-study-of-online-abuse-of-female-mps-shows-urgent-legal-reform-is-needed-254184

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for April 10, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on April 10, 2025.

    Keith Rankin Essay – Rational Expectations, Intelligence, and War
    Essay by Keith Rankin. ‘Rational Expectations’ is a problematic theory in economics. Here I want to focus more away from economics; and more on the meanings of ‘rationality’ in decision-making, than on the problematic ambiguity of the word ‘expect’ (and its derivatives such as ‘expectations’). ‘Expectation’ here means what we believe ‘will’ happen, not ‘should’

    Location-sharing apps are enabling domestic violence. But young people aren’t aware of the danger
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria Atienzar-Prieto, PhD Candidate, School of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University The Conversation/Snapchat Location-sharing apps are shaping how we connect and communicate – especially among younger people. Snap Map, a popular feature within Snapchat, is widely used by teens and young adults to stay in

    Tools like Apple’s photo Clean Up are yet another nail in the coffin for being able to trust our eyes
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By T.J. Thomson, Senior Lecturer in Visual Communication & Digital Media, RMIT University Apple Clean Up highlights photo elements that might be deemed distracting. T.J. Thomson You may have seen ads by Apple promoting its new Clean Up feature that can be used to remove elements in a

    Current major party policies fall short for Indigenous communities. Here’s a better path forward
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bartholomew Stanford, Senior Lecturer of Indigenous Studies, Indigenous Education and Research Centre, James Cook University Since the Voice to Parliament referendum in 2023, the Indigenous Affairs portfolio has not featured prominently in policy debates at the national level. As the election campaign continues, there’s yet to be

    Good boy or bad dog? Our 1 billion pet dogs do real environmental damage
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bill Bateman, Associate Professor, Behavioural Ecology, Curtin University William Edge/Shutterstock There are an estimated 1 billion domesticated dogs in the world. Most are owned animals – pets, companions or working animals who share their lives with humans. They are the most common large predator in the world.

    Labor made plenty of promises at the last election. Did they deliver?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Rindert Algra-Maschio, PhD Candidate, Social and Political Sciences, Monash University Election promises are a mainstay of contemporary politics. Governments cite kept commitments as proof they can be trusted, while oppositions pounce on any failure to deliver. But beyond the politics, campaign pledges are also central to

    Australia urgently needs to get serious about long-term climate policy – but there’s no sign of that in the election campaign
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Head of Energy, Institute for Climate Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University The federal election should be an earnest contest over the fundamentals of Australia’s climate and energy policies. Strong global action on climate change is clearly

    1 in 10 tunnel workers could develop silicosis, our new research shows
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Cole, Occupational Hygienist, PhD Candidate, University of Sydney Around 10% of underground tunnel workers in Queensland could develop silicosis, our new study has found. Silicosis is a serious, incurable lung disease caused by inhaling small particles of silica dust. You might have heard about it in

    Here’s how a ‘silent’ tax hike is balancing the budget – with the heaviest burden on the lowest paid
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Murphy, Visiting Fellow, Economics (modelling), Australian National University With just over three weeks to go until the federal election, both major parties are trying to position themselves as Australia’s better economic managers. Labor was able to hand down two consecutive budget surpluses in its current term.

    Our ancestors didn’t eat 3 meals a day. So why do we?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Richardson, Senior Lecturer in Culinary Arts & Gastronomy, Auckland University of Technology Shutterstock Pop quiz: name the world’s most famous trio? If you’re a foodie, then your answer might have been breakfast, lunch and dinner. It’s an almost universally accepted trinity – particularly in the Western

    Tripped at the first hurdle: fees-free changes could put some students off tertiary study altogether
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Ann Alabaster, PhD candidate, University of Canterbury skynesher/Getty Images The door to tertiary education will likely close for some students now changes have kicked in for the fees-free policy. In 2017, the Labour government introduced a fee holiday for students’ first year of academic study, or

    Europe tops global ranking of dynamic and sustainable cities – here’s why
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pascual Berrone, Head of Strategic Management Department and Chair of Sustainability and Business Strategy, IESE Business School (Universidad de Navarra) London, New York and Paris have been named the world’s most dynamic and liveable cities. This is according to a new ranking of global cities that highlights

    Election Diary: Chalmers and Taylor quizzed on personal flaws during animated treasurers’ debate
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Perhaps the most compelling moment, at least for non-economists, in Wednesday night’s debate between Treasurer Jim Chalmers and his “shadow” Angus Taylor was when each man was forced to respond to what critics see as their personal flaws. Moderator Ross

    Politics with Michelle Grattan: Hugh White on what the next PM should tell Trump and defending Australia – without the US
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Trump ascendancy has forced international economic issues and the future strategic outlook onto the Australian election agenda, even if they are at the margins. This campaign – while dominated by domestic issues, notably the cost of living – is

    The Coalition’s domestic gas plan would lower prices – just not very much
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Hepburn, Professor, Deakin Law School, Deakin University A LNG carrier departs Gladstone. Ivan Kuzkin/Shutterstock It surprised many Australians when the Coalition announced a plan straight from the progressive side of politics: force large gas companies to reserve gas for domestic use – at a lower cost

    Can you spot a financial fake? How AI is raising our risks of billing fraud
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Grosse, Director of the Master of Business Analytics, Senior Lecturer, Accounting, University of Technology Sydney Along with the many benefits of artificial intelligence – from providing real time navigation to early disease detection – the explosion in its use has increased opportunities for fraud and deception.

    Running for parliament is still a man’s world, with fewer female candidates – especially in winnable seats
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elise Stephenson, Deputy Director, Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, Australian National University Despite progress towards gender equality in Australian elections, women remain underrepresented among candidates vying for office on May 3. They are also overrepresented in “glass cliff” seats, which are the ones that are difficult to

    Adam Bandt says the Greens can deliver ‘real change’ – but the party should choose its battles more wisely
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Crowley, Adjunct Associate Professor, Public and Environmental Policy, University of Tasmania Federal Greens leader Adam Bandt says the federal election offers “an opportunity for real change”, saying his party would use the balance of power in the next parliament to help deliver serious policy reforms. In

    Don’t let embarrassment stop you – talking about these anal cancer symptoms could save your life
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Suzanne Mahady, Gastroenterologist & Clinical Epidemiologist, Senior Lecturer, Monash University sarkao/Shutterstock Anal cancer doesn’t get a lot of attention. This may be because it’s relatively rare – anal cancer affects an estimated one to two Australians in every 100,000. As a comparison, melanomas affect around 70 in

    Gold rush Melbourne and post-war boom: how Australia overcame housing shortages in the past
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Stevens, Lecturer, Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, Australian Catholic University As part of their federal election campaign, the Coalition announced plans to limit the number of international students able to commence study each year to 240,000, “focused on driving […] housing availability and affordability”. This

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Further appeal for information, Frankton fire

    Source: New Zealand Police (District News)

    Attributable to Detective Sergeant Matt Lee:

    Police investigating a fire at a mechanical workshop in Frankton are seeking further information from the public.

    Police were called to the fire on Ellis Street just after 11:20am on Monday 10 March.

    The investigation has progressed well in recent days and Police are asking the public for any sightings of a Grey Honda Civic with the registration KWJ191.

    This vehicle was last seen in the Frankton area on 9 March before it was recovered on Winstone Ave, Chartwell on 17 March.

    We would like to speak to anyone who saw the vehicle, or has any information about its movements between 9 March and 17 March.

    Additionally, we would like to hear from anyone with information relating to the 10 March fire. This includes any photos, videos or CCTV footage on Ellis Street prior to any emergency services arriving.

    Anyone with information that could assist Police is asked to make contact via 105, either over the phone or online.

    Please reference the file number 250310/3418.

    Information can also be provided anonymously via Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.

    ENDS

    Issued by Police Media Centre

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Gang members arrested, drugs seized in Gisborne

    Source: New Zealand Police (National News)

    Attributable to Detective Inspector Dave de Lange:

    Ten gang members or associates have been arrested this week, after Police terminated an operation and executed search warrants related to drug offending in Gisborne.

    Eight people, aged between 19 and 46, have been charged with drug dealing offences including cannabis and methamphetamine. All seven have been remanded in custody and are due to appear in the Gisborne District Court on 14 April.

    Two others were arrested for obstruction and possession of cannabis.

    Police also seized significant quantities of methamphetamine and cannabis during these warrants, as well as a shotgun and a variety of ammunition at one property.

    Gisborne Police will continue to hold people to account who are supplying drugs and causing harm to our community.

    If you have concerns about illegal drug use in your community, please call 111 if there is an immediate public safety risk, or contact us via 105 online or by phone to make a report.

    ENDS

    Issued by Police Media Centre

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: (WIP) FPIC in focus: implications of a recent Canadian Federal Court Decision for Australian stakeholders

    Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)

    Exploring the ‘gold standard’ in Indigenous engagement 4 min read

    The principle of ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC) is recognised as a ‘gold standard’ for engaging with First Nations communities in the context of environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations.

    FPIC is encompassed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which, although ratified by Australia, has not yet been incorporated into domestic law. FPIC is prominent as a consideration for project proponents consulting with First Nations stakeholders in relation to native title approvals for project development, and protection of cultural heritage. Notably, in its current review of the future act regime under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) is examining whether the future acts regime adequately reflects internationally recognised principles of human rights, including FPIC.1

    In this Insight, we consider a recent Canadian decision on FPIC and explore its potential impact on FPIC considerations in Australia.

    Status of UNDRIP in Canada

    In contrast to Australia, Canada has incorporated UNDRIP into its domestic law. As one of the first countries to enact domestic legislation implementing UNDRIP through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (S.C. 2021, c. 14) (UNDA), Canada has been at the forefront of developments in Indigenous rights and consultation.

    In Kebaowek First Nation v Canadian Nuclear Laboratories 2025 FC 319, the Federal Court of Canada recently provided clarification on the application of the UNDRIP and FPIC in Canadian law. This decision has the potential to influence how FPIC is approached by other countries, including Australia.

    Background

    Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ltd (CNL) sought to amend its operating licence for the Chalk River Laboratories site to modernise its nuclear waste disposal facility. The site is situated in Kebaowek First Nation’s traditional territory.

    In January 2024, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission granted CNL’s application. Kebaowek First Nation challenged this decision, including on the ground that the Commission (as an agent of the Crown) failed to consider UNDRIP’s implications in relation to the duty to consult and accommodate the Indigenous owners.

    The court’s decision

    Federal Court Justice Blackhawk agreed with the Kebaowek First Nation, finding that the Commission’s failure to consider the UNDRIP as an important contextual factor in assessing the adequacy of Crown consultation was an error of law.2 The court emphasised that with Canada’s enactment of UNDA, UNDRIP now serves as an interpretative lens in determining whether the relevant duty to consult and accommodate had been discharged.3

    Importantly, having considered international scholarship, Justice Blackhawk held that FPIC does not grant a substantive veto right. While FPIC mandates a robust process, this does not extend to a right to a particular outcome.4

    The court found that the consultation necessary to give effect to FPIC does, however, place ‘a heightened emphasis on the need for a deep level of consultation and negotiations geared toward a mutually accepted arrangement’5 and requires ‘significant robust processes tailored to consider the impacted Indigenous Nations laws, knowledge and practices’.6

    Concerning CNL’s application, the Court found it would have been consistent with the FPIC standard for the Commission to modify the consultation process to address some of the Kebaowek’s suggestions.7

    The Court quashed the decision and remitted the matter back to the Commission.

    Implications for the Australian context

    The Canadian Federal Court decision clearly articulates that FPIC under UNDRIP necessitates a deep level of consultation with First Nations peoples, but does not extend to a power of veto. This is contrary to the views of some commentators, First Nations peoples and NGOs on UNDRIP, particularly in the context of Article 29.2, which concerns the storage or disposal of hazardous waste (which was of particular relevance in the Keboawek case). Notwithstanding the divergence in views, for Australia, where ALRC discussions around implementing similar standards continue, this case provides insight into how the integration of FPIC into domestic law might be approached.

    The Issues Paper released by the ALRC in November 2024 notes that suggestions for reform of the future act regime include ‘more clearly incorporating international law principles such as FPIC in the future acts regime’.8 In light of the Keboawek case, it will be preferrable if—as part of any such integration—the parameters of FPIC are clearly delineated, such that litigation is not required for clarification.

    Stakeholders will have the opportunity to make submissions on the ALRC reforms when the Discussion Paper is released in May. The ALRC is due to provide its final report to the Attorney-General by 8 December 2025.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Changing customer service levels: a lesson in consumer law risks

    Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)

    Lessons from ACCC v Telstra 5 min read

    On 21 February 2025, the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) handed down its decision in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 93. The Court found Telstra misled nearly 9000 customers via its Belong broadband service by failing to inform them of a reduction to the maximum upload speed on their internet plans.

    The decision is a reminder that not informing customers about changes to a material feature of a product or service can be considered misleading or deceptive under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), if the circumstances create a reasonable expectation that the service remains unchanged.

    In this Insight, we explore the decision and its implications for businesses in Australia.

    Key takeaways

    • Failure to notify customers about a material change to a product or service can amount to a false or misleading representation, or misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL. This is especially the case where the product or service continues to be marketed, invoiced and administered in the same manner, creating a reasonable expectation amongst consumers that the product or service is the same in all material aspects as it has always been.
    • Businesses should be proactive in notifying customers in a timely manner of changes that impact the value or performance of their service to mitigate regulatory and reputational risks.

    ACCC allegations

    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleged that Telstra, operating the Belong brand, contravened the ACL by changing the upload speed of its ‘Premium’ NBN plan from 40Mbps to 20Mbps in late 2020 without notifying affected customers.

    The ACCC’s case focussed on two classes of customers who purchased the ‘Premium’ plan prior to being migrated to a slower 20Mbps plan without being notified:

    • Cohort A, being 2785 customers who originally signed up to the ‘Premium’ plan when it was expressly advertised in published materials as including 40Mbps upload speeds. These customers were informed of the change retrospectively in 2021 and 2023; and
    • Cohort B, being 6112 customers who signed up for the ‘Premium’ plan after Belong had stopped specifying an upload speed in its published materials, referring only to the plan as ‘Premium’.

    For both cohorts, the ACCC alleged that Telstra engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations to customers that the service they were receiving was the same as what they had originally signed up for, when it was not.

    Telstra admitted to having misled Cohort A customers but denied making any misleading representations to Cohort B customers.

    The Court’s findings

    The Court found that Telstra contravened the ACL by unilaterally migrating its customers to a different plan without notifying them. In respect of Cohort A customers, the Court found this conduct contravened sections 18, 29(1)(b) and 29(1)(g) of the ACL.

    In respect of Cohort B customers, the Court found this conduct contravened sections 18 and 29(1)(g) (false and misleading representations surrounding the performance characteristics of a good or service) but did not amount to a contravention of section 29(1)(b) (false and misleading representations surrounding the particular standard, quality, value or grade of a service).

    Cohort A customers

    In respect of Cohort A customers, the Court found that Telstra represented to consumers that the ‘Premium’ plan maintained the same upload speed capabilities after the migration as it did before. This representation arose because customers had a reasonable expectation that they would be notified of any detrimental changes to their service—an expectation created by Belong’s silence contextualised by the published assertions about the plan’s characteristics (including explicit references to the plan possessing maximum upload speeds of 40Mbps) and the ongoing administration of the service as if nothing had changed.

    In these circumstances, the Court held that on and from the date of the migration, and until Belong corrected the representations in 2021 and 2023, Telstra’s silence amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct for the purposes of section 18 of the ACL, and constituted a false and misleading statement regarding the standard of the service and the service’s performance characteristics, amounting to contraventions of sections 29(1)(b) and 29(1)(g) respectively.

    Cohort B customers

    In the case of Cohort B customers, Telstra denied it made any false or misleading representations to consumers. While Belong did not expressly state the maximum upload speed to these customers at the time of purchase, the ACCC alleged that Telstra nevertheless represented to consumers that their service was the same as it was at the time of purchase. This representation was said to be created by Telstra’s silence contextualised by Belong’s terms and conditions (which provided that Belong could migrate customers to alternative services provided ‘reasonable notice’ was given to customers) (Terms and Conditions Conduct), the continued marketing of the plan as a ‘Premium’ plan (Marketing Conduct), and the continued invoicing of the ‘Premium’ plan (Invoicing Conduct).

    The Court found that the upload speed was ‘sufficiently critical’ to the character of an NBN plan that customers would reasonably expect to be advised of a detrimental change to it. The Court also considered that Telstra’s silence combined with the Marketing Conduct and Invoicing conduct, created a representation that a consumer’s service had not changed in any material respect (including upload speed). It followed that, by failing to notify customers of their migration to plans with slower upload speeds, Telstra falsely represented to customers that their plans continued to have the same maximum upload speeds as they always had, when in fact they did not. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered various combinations of Telstra’s Terms and Conditions Conduct, Marketing Conduct, Invoicing Conduct and silence to identify which combinations had the effect of creating a false representation.

    Ultimately, the Court found that Telstra engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct for the purposes of section 18 of the ACL, and made a false and misleading statement regarding the service’s performance characteristics in contravention of section 29(1)(g). Telstra was not found to have contravened section 29(1)(b), as Belong did not represent the particular standard of the service, only that the service continued to provide the same upload speeds as at the time of purchase.

    What this means for businesses in Australia

    This case highlights the critical importance of transparency and clear communication with consumers.

    Businesses must ensure that any changes to their service terms, especially changes that could be perceived as detrimental, are clearly and proactively communicated to customers. This is particularly the case where the change relates to a term which is material to the service, such that customers would reasonably expect to be notified of any change.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Padilla, Wyden, Cortez Masto, Warren Seek Watchdog Investigation of Potential Trump Administration Violations of Taxpayer Privacy Laws

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

    Padilla, Wyden, Cortez Masto, Warren Seek Watchdog Investigation of Potential Trump Administration Violations of Taxpayer Privacy Laws

    New request for investigation comes as Treasury Secretary agrees to leak millions of protected records to DHS, multiple senior IRS officials announce intent to leave agency

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) urged the acting Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration to investigate several reports that the Trump Administration is potentially violating strict taxpayer privacy laws by providing highly sensitive and legally protected taxpayer data to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and personnel affiliated with Elon Musk across various federal agencies. The Senators’ request comes after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Homeland Security to provide an unprecedented level of access to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) taxpayer data for open-ended investigations.

    “Taxpayer data held by the IRS is, by design, subject to some of the strongest privacy protections under federal law, the violation of which can trigger civil and criminal sanctions, including up to five years in prison. Congress passed these protections in the 1970s after President Nixon weaponized the IRS against his political enemies. These legal protections for taxpayer data apply to all taxpayers and are an essential foundation for our tax system, which requires the voluntary submission of information to the government. Voluntary tax compliance depends on taxpayers having faith that their confidential information will not be used for anything other than tax administration,” wrote the Senators.

    The letter also follows several high-ranking IRS officials, including the acting commissioner and chief privacy officer, announcing their imminent departures from the agency.

    “Immediately following Bessent’s execution of the [agreement with DHS], several IRS leaders announced their resignations, including Acting IRS Commissioner Melanie Krause and Chief Privacy Officer Kathleen Walters, raising further questions about whether they resigned to avoid being a party to a criminal conspiracy to violate tax privacy law,” continued the Senators. 

    “The risks created by these activities cannot be overstated… [IRS] data can be inaccurate because of identity theft, keypunch errors, obsolete address information, and a wide range of other reasons. If DHS relies on the same data to deport millions of people without validating its accuracy, it is likely to end up making grave errors that impact American citizens and immigrants with valid legal status,” added the Senators.

    In addition to Padilla, Wyden, Cortez Masto, and Warren, the letter was also signed by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).  

    Last month, Senators Padilla, Cortez Masto, and Wyden condemned the IRS’ plan to provide sensitive taxpayer information to DHS to locate suspected undocumented immigrants. The Senators also led a letter to IRS and DHS leadership raising the alarm on reports that DHS and the Department of Government Efficiency illegally requested sensitive taxpayer information from the IRS.

    Full text of the letter is available here and below:

    Dear Acting Inspector General Hill:

    We write to request an investigation into alarming reports about improper access to tax return information at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Elon Musk’s associates at the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and others, potentially violating the privacy of every taxpayer. As you know, violations of the tax privacy rules are punishable by civil and criminal penalties, including up to five years in prison.

    Following the abrupt departure of the Acting Chief Counsel and Acting IRS Commissioner on April 7, 2025, Treasury Secretary Bessent signed a memorandum of understanding that gives ICE unprecedented access to return information in an apparent attempt to weaponize the tax system against up to seven million people suspected of being undocumented immigrants. The MOU cites Internal Revenue Code section 6103(i)(2), which permits certain limited disclosures for active criminal investigations individually approved by high level officials, but there were only 30,538 disclosures for all such investigations in the U.S. in 2023 and 14,640 in 2022, raising questions about whether it would be possible for ICE to have a valid reason for obtaining information on up to seven million people.  

    Immediately following Bessent’s execution of the MOU, several IRS leaders announced their resignations, including Acting IRS Chief Counsel Melanie Krause and Chief Privacy Officer Kathleen Walters, raising further questions about whether they resigned to avoid being a party to a criminal conspiracy to violate tax privacy law.  

    DOGE has also sought access to the IRS’s most sensitive systems to create a “mega-API,” that insiders have said is an “open door controlled by Musk for all American’s [sic] most sensitive information with none of the rules that normally secure that data.” This proposed “hackathon” by Musk and third parties could result in the exporting of taxpayer data to private entities and compromise the privacy of millions of Americans. DOGE has also requested an “omnibus” agreement with federal agencies that would allow a broad swath of federal officials to cross-reference benefits rolls with taxpayer data.

    Finally, Treasury and IRS are requiring IRS employees, including employees in service centers who do not have a government-issued computer, to send emails listing five things they did each week to an external email address at OPM without any pre-screening to ensure no return information is included. Agencies are permitted to opt out of this requirement, but the IRS has not.

    The risks created by these activities cannot be overstated. The data in IRS systems cannot necessarily be relied upon for non-tax purposes. The IRS suspends the processing of millions of returns each year and flags millions of others for follow-up because the information in its files does not match what is on the taxpayer’s return. The data can be inaccurate because of identity theft, keypunch errors, obsolete address information, and a wide range of other reasons. If DHS relies on the same data to deport millions of people without validating its accuracy, it is likely to end up making grave errors that impact American citizens and immigrants with valid legal status.

    Moreover, taxpayer data held by the IRS is, by design, subject to some of the strongest privacy protections under federal law, the violation of which can trigger civil and criminal sanctions, including up to five years in prison. Congress passed these protections in the 1970s after President Nixon weaponized the IRS against his political enemies. These legal protections for taxpayer data apply to all taxpayers and are an essential foundation for our tax system, which requires the voluntary submission of information to the government. Voluntary tax compliance depends on taxpayers having faith that their confidential information will not be used for anything other than tax administration. Otherwise, those who value their privacy are less likely to file and pay what they owe. 

    There are already projections that taxpayers are paying $500 billion less in taxes this year, which could be explained, in part, by a lack of confidence that their tax return information will be kept confidential. Experts estimate that this MOU could reduce revenue by $25 billion in 2026 and $313 billion over a ten-year period. If that trend continues, it will undermine the finances of Medicare and Social Security, which the Trump Administration is already dismantling and Elon Musk has said is a Ponzi scheme.  

    While there are procedures by which agencies can gain access to return information, they generally require a determination that the information is required in a specific case for a lawful purpose. IRS employees may not access such information without proper training, and the information cannot be transmitted to another party without proper safeguards. The administration has thus far failed to timely respond to a congressional request on March 14, 2025, for information about the legal basis for the spate of recent requests for access to return data.   

    1. Concerning DHS’s request for return information about ITIN holders, please provide:

    a. A complete unredacted copy of the MOU and any related agreements (including the separate implementation agreement referenced in the redacted MOU);

    b. Any documented concerns raised by any senior IRS officials;        

    c. Any statements received describing the intended use of the information; 

    d. Any parties, officers, or agencies to whom the requester intended to redisclose any or all of the information; and

    e. The legal basis for authorizing disclosures under this MOU; and

    f. The extent to which such disclosures would be unprecedented. 

    2. Please provide any other requests for access to taxpayer or other sensitive information the IRS received from any agency in the executive branch (including DHS, SSA, DOGE, and the Office of Personnel Management) during this administration for return or other sensitive information or access to IRS systems containing such information, which was not subject to judicial review or routinely granted during the last administration.

    3. Please also provide any requests for taxpayer or other protected information received from the President or the Executive Office of the President (EOP) during this administration, including the Office of Management and Budget, DOGE, and Elon Musk.

    4. In each instance described in #2 or #3, please explain how the requestor proposed to use the information requested, the IRS’s response to the request, and the legal basis for the IRS’s response.

    5. Every month until the end of this administration, please provide a copy of any new request that would fall into any of these categories and the IRS’s response.

    6. Please also provide a list of all non-IRS employee(s) currently detailed to, or working with, the IRS as part of DOGE or its affiliates and provide a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding(s) allowing them to do so. 

    7. Every month until the end of this administration, provide an update on any modifications to any of the agreements referenced above to share return information.

    8. Please provide an analysis of the risk that the “5-things” emails IRS employees are required to send to OPM contain information protected by section 6103 or protected by other provisions (e.g., the Privacy Act).

    9. Please provide an estimate of the number of 6103 or other statutory violations the management of the IRS and Treasury are allowing to occur by requiring 5-things emails to OPM.

    10. Please provide information about the nature and scope of the “mega API” and “hackathon” activity, which was reported in the press, including what sensitive data the vendor has access to, how the contract for services was negotiated, and whether there were any violations of federal contracting regulations.

    11. Please provide an estimate of the percentage of individuals who have been given access to return or other sensitive information for the first time during this administration without first completing all of the training that IRS employees are required to take before having such access. Please provide a list of their titles.

    12. To the extent new individuals or agencies have been granted access to return or other sensitive information during this administration, please estimate the percentage who did not properly secure and safeguard such information as required. Please provide a list of any agencies and the titles of any individuals. 

    13. To the extent that improper access or disclosures of return or other sensitive information have occurred during this administration, please describe the circumstances of the disclosure, provide an estimate of the number of taxpayers affected, and whether they have been notified that their information has been improperly accessed or disclosed. 

    Please provide us with this information as soon as it is available, provide us with a briefing by May 8, 2025, and complete this work by September 30, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Current major party policies fall short for Indigenous communities. Here’s a better path forward

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bartholomew Stanford, Senior Lecturer of Indigenous Studies, Indigenous Education and Research Centre, James Cook University

    Since the Voice to Parliament referendum in 2023, the Indigenous Affairs portfolio has not featured prominently in policy debates at the national level.

    As the election campaign continues, there’s yet to be much substantive discussion about how to improve the lives of First Nations people.

    But what do we know about Indigenous policy under a continuing Albanese Labor government, or a new one led by Peter Dutton?

    And more importantly, what does the evidence suggest the government, regardless of persuasion, should do with the Indigenous Affairs portfolio and areas where Indigenous policy needs reform to meet international standards?

    What’s happened since the referendum?

    The government has all but walked away from the Uluru Statement from the Heart since the referendum.

    The statement was the result of unprecedented, widespread consultation with Indigenous people nationwide in 2016 and 2017.

    Anthony Albanese committed to implementing the statement in full. It includes two other principles in addition to the Voice to Parliament: a Truth-Telling Commission and Treaty.

    But the government appears to have no appetite for these matters at the moment. The failure of the referendum is also something the prime minister would likely want to distance his government from in the re-election bid.

    After the referendum in October 2023, the government made a significant change in direction from Indigenous rights to economic initiatives for Indigenous communities. In December of that year, the government began public consultations to investigate how to strengthen the Indigenous Procurement Policy.

    In February 2025, the government announced reforms to the policy. It committed to new procurement targets, with an intention of reaching 4% of all Commonwealth procurement being from Indigenous businesses by 2030.

    There have been criticisms of this policy and the Indigenous business sector however, with concerns about Indigenous identity fraud and misuse of the policy.

    What has Labor pledged?

    Labor has committed to a continuation of efforts to close the gap. This is despite clear deficiencies within the policy to address socioeconomic disadvantage and the growing incarceration rates of Indigenous Australians.

    The government has flagged the potential for more economic based policies instead of returning to the prior focus on Indigenous rights, recognition and truth-telling.

    Labor has also committed to more Indigenous engagement at the international level. This is mostly through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s First Nations Ambassador initiatives, Indigenous foreign policy and public diplomacy.

    What about the Coalition?

    The Liberal and National parties are using the referendum outcome as a barometer to gauge the public’s attitudes towards Indigenous affairs. They are largely opposed to increased Indigenous rights and recognition.

    This has already started at a state level. The Queensland Liberal National Party, for instance, walked back their support for a state treaty just a week after the referendum result.

    The federal Coalition has since been vocal about curtailing Indigenous recognition and placing greater scrutiny on Indigenous funding and programs.

    Peter Dutton has expressed an interest in removing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags at government press conferences. He also wants to scrap the First Nations ambassador role.

    Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs Jacinta Nampijinpa Price wants the Coalition to audit government spending on Indigenous programs. She also wants a royal commission into sexual abuse in Indigenous communities.




    Read more:
    A royal commission won’t help the abuse of Aboriginal kids. Indigenous-led solutions will


    It’s safe to assume the Coalition will have no interest in revisiting any aspects of the Uluru Statement.

    Dutton has indicated, however, that a referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition could be reconsidered, if it had bipartisan support.

    But he seems very uncertain on this issue. It’s unclear if he or the Coalition would even support this.

    The direction of conservative politics in Australia is following trends happening in New Zealand. Indigenous rights there are very much in the crosshairs of policy debate and political attack.

    The missing policy pieces

    So what does the evidence say about what politicians should be doing to improve outcomes for First Nations people?

    The first thing to do is come up with a plan. We, as a nation, must move past the referendum result and present a clear roadmap for addressing Indigenous rights and ongoing marginalisation.

    Second, work on implementing the Uluru Statement remains unfinished. Truth and Treaty can still be acted on. The recognition so resoundingly called for in the statement remains elusive.

    And if not a Voice to Parliament, government needs to work with First Nations people to determine a path forward for legislating a representative Indigenous national body that both sides of politics will support.

    The Closing the Gap policy needs also needs massive overhaul. Of the 19 targets, only five are on track to be met.

    The Productivity Commission, which monitors the progress on the targets, has said the program will fail “without fundamental change”.

    Some improvements have been made, but closing the gap in life expectancy and addressing the over-representation of Indigenous people in incarceration continue to be areas of vital concern.

    Finally, Australia has not yet lifted Indigenous policy to international standards. The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has existed since 2007. Australia officially endorsed it in 2009.

    But, according to the Law Council of Australia, legal recognition of the declaration, and the rights it accords, is only recognised in a “piecemeal manner”.

    This means there is no comprehensive or consistent legal provision for Indigenous rights in Australia.

    And with no Treaty, there are limited safeguards for Indigenous cultures, creating further uncertainty which perpetuates and exacerbates Indigenous disadvantage.

    Bartholomew Stanford receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    ref. Current major party policies fall short for Indigenous communities. Here’s a better path forward – https://theconversation.com/current-major-party-policies-fall-short-for-indigenous-communities-heres-a-better-path-forward-253331

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI China: Israel says arrested ‘senior terrorist’ in West Bank

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    Palestinians confront Israeli forces during clashes in the Balata refugee camp, east of Nablus in the northern West Bank, on April 9, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    Israeli security forces arrested a senior militant in Nablus, West Bank, according to a joint statement issued by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the Israel Security Agency (ISA) and the Israel Police on Wednesday.

    The statement said that during counterterrorism operations conducted on Tuesday night, special police forces arrested Muhammad Bana, “a senior terrorist in the dismantled Lion’s Den terrorist network,” and weapons were confiscated.

    It noted that during the apprehension, Bana, armed with an M-16 rifle and a spray grenade, attempted to flee and was shot in his leg.

    The statement added that he was involved in shooting and explosive attacks toward the security forces in the West Bank and had planned other attacks.

    In addition, the IDF’s Duvdevan Unit apprehended Khalil Hanbali, “who was wanted by security forces due to his involvement in terrorist activity,” according to the statement.

    He was involved in shooting attacks against IDF soldiers, served as a key weapon supplier, and had also attempted to plan additional attacks, it added.

    Israeli security forces have recently conducted frequent security operations in the West Bank.

    Earlier in the day, the IDF said in a statement that its forces demolished the West Bank home of a slain Palestinian who fatally shot an Israeli soldier on March 22.

    The Palestinian, Mujahid Mansour, fired at a passenger van at a junction west of Ramallah, causing damage but no casualties, and fled the scene, according to the statement.

    During a chase that lasted about five hours, an Israeli soldier was killed and six other Israeli fighters were wounded. Mansour was eventually killed by a missile fired from a combat helicopter.

    Israel captured East Jerusalem, along with the rest of the West Bank, in the 1967 Six-Day War. Under international law, East Jerusalem is considered occupied Palestinian territory, and its annexation by Israel is deemed illegal.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Mixed results in Medibank class action on privilege claims over investigation reports

    Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)

    Multi-purpose reports remain most challenging for privilege 9 min read

    A recent Federal Court decision has further highlighted the challenges of maintaining privilege claims over third-party investigation reports. This is particularly relevant where those reports are—or become—relied on for non-legal purposes, including operational, regulatory and public or investor relations.

    Medibank has had mixed results in defending challenges to privilege claims over a series of third-party reports relating to its 2022 major data breach. It successfully defended claims over narrower and more targeted reports and communications with CyberCX, Coveware, CrowdStrike and Threat Intelligence, including, eg, those concerning negotiations with the threat actor.

    However, Medibank failed to sustain its claim over three wider-ranging reports prepared by consultant Deloitte, which the court found had multiple purposes, with the legal purpose not being predominant.

    While the court’s reasoning is consistent with the Full Federal Court’s decision in Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Robertson [2024] FCAFC 58 (see our previous Insight), it demonstrates that the challenges of maintaining privilege claims can remain even when detailed witness evidence is carefully prepared to support those claims.

    Medibank has sought leave to appeal the court’s decision in relation to the reports by Deloitte.

    This Insight considers the implications of the decision and outlines practical steps to take when an investigation report is commissioned for a legal purpose.

    Key takeaways

    • The Federal Court has rejected Medibank’s privilege claims over three factual investigation reports prepared by Deloitte following a major data breach, but has accepted communications and reports from cybersecurity firms CrowdStrike and Threat Intelligence as privileged.
    • The decision is largely consistent with the Full Federal Court’s recent decision on similar privilege claims in the Optus data breach class action, further highlighting the difficulties associated with claiming privilege over investigation reports prepared for multiple purposes, including legal, governance, regulatory compliance and/or operational purposes.
    • The legal purpose for preparing a report must predominate other purposes—this is generally assessed at the time the report was commissioned, but later evidence can inform this assessment, particularly where the purpose evolves.
    • It is not sufficient merely to assert that a document is privileged or, for that matter, to adduce evidence only from inhouse counsel. Courts will rigorously examine the nature of the document and the surrounding circumstances to determine the document’s dominant purpose. In this case, that process involved focused cross-examination of Medibank’s CEO and chair.
    • The decision also further highlights the risks associated with making public statements about investigation reports, particularly the potential for those statements to highlight a material non-legal purpose of the document or otherwise to waive any legal privilege that attaches to it.

    Background

    From August to October 2022, Medibank experienced a cyber incident where cyber criminals accessed its IT systems and exfiltrated customer data. In a subsequent class action against Medibank, the applicants sought production of several reports prepared by Deloitte, CrowdStrike and Threat Intelligence, as well as communications involving CyberCX and Coveware. Medibank claimed legal privilege over these documents, contending that were created for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice or for use in any litigation relating to the cyber incident.

    CyberCX, Coveware, CrowdStrike and Threat Intelligence reports privileged

    Justice Rofe held that Medibank’s communications with, and reports prepared by, cybersecurity experts CyberCX, Coveware, CrowdStrike and Threat Intelligence were privileged because the evidence established that those firms were engaged by Medibank’s lawyers for the dominant purpose of providing technical assistance and advice to enable Medibank’s lawyers to provide legal advice, including in relation to legal proceedings. For example, the reports were used for the purposes of briefing counsel, responding to regulatory notices, and preparing Medibank’s defence in the proceeding.1

    Importantly, even though the scope of services provided by those firms to Medibank’s lawyers was not, in many cases, materially different from the scope of services already being provided to Medibank under previous direct engagements, Justice Rofe held that the relevant consideration is the purpose for which the relevant documents came into existence, and that the scope of services was only one factor to consider. In these cases, the documents being created possessed a dominant legal purpose.2

    Deloitte reports not privileged

    Justice Rofe decided that the three reports prepared by Deloitte were not privileged because the provision of legal advice was not the dominant purpose for which they were commissioned. Rather, the following purposes were found to be ‘at least equally dominant, if not more dominant’:3

    • Assuaging market and consumer concerns: Medibank made numerous public references to the commissioning of the external review and the appointment of Deloitte, including in ASX announcements and communications with employees, customers and health partners. These statements stated that Medibank, not its lawyers, were responsible for commissioning the report, and that the purpose of the report was to ‘protect and safeguard customers’.4 These statements were considered strong evidence that one of the dominant purposes of the report was assuaging market and consumer concerns.
    • Avoiding independent APRA review: evidence was given that a key concern for Medibank was to avoid the need for the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to conduct its own review of the data breach, which it was highly unlikely to avoid unless Medibank conducted a review in accordance with APRA’s requirements. The close communication between APRA and Medibank regarding the scope of the review (which notably did not copy in any of Medibank’s lawyers in most instances) and the ‘tri-partite’ meetings between Medibank, APRA and Deloitte were considered strong evidence that one of the dominant purposes of the report was avoiding an APRA investigation.5

    The applicants also submitted that the board’s oversight role in the production of the reports demonstrated a further governance purpose. While Justice Rofe did not decide that this governance purpose was equally dominant as the legal purpose, her Honour did find that certain factors weighed against the dominant purpose being the legal purpose, including the board’s desire for an overview of what had occurred, rather than for unvarnished legal advice, and the direct reporting by Deloitte to the board, rather than via Medibank’s lawyers.6

    Although Justice Rofe found that the Deloitte reports were not privileged from the outset, her Honour decided that Medibank’s public statement, which referred to the implementation of one of the Deloitte reports’ recommendations, would have waived privilege in the document because Medibank was seeking to take advantage of its implementation of the recommendations resulting from the external incident review to deflect criticism, and enhance or maintain its good standing in the eyes of its shareholders and customers, and its share price. In the circumstances, her Honour observed that Medibank ‘cannot at the same time maintain privilege in that part of the report setting out the recommendations to enhance Medibank’s IT processes and systems‘.7

    Consistency with Optus’s privilege claims

    Justice Rofe’s reasoning is largely consistent with the Full Federal Court’s recent decision in the Optus data breach class action. In that case, Optus’s privilege claim over the Deloitte report failed because it was not created for the dominant purpose of legal advice or litigation, but rather for multiple purposes, including operational, governance, regulatory and public relations purposes.8

    The failure of the privilege claim in that case was, in large part, because testimonial evidence of Optus’s general counsel to the effect that the legal purpose of the investigation report was the dominant purpose was contradicted by Optus’s public statements and board materials.

    In contrast, in this case, Medibank adduced very detailed and focused testimonial  evidence of the Deloitte reports’ legal purpose, including from their CEO and chair. Even adopting that approach, Justice Rofe decided that the testimonial evidence was insufficient to outweigh contemporaneous documentary evidence, including Medibank’s repeated public references to the review’s purpose being to learn from the incident so as to protect customer data, as well as the close ongoing communication between Deloitte and APRA without Medibank’s lawyers. This contextual evidence tended to indicate that, despite the testimony given by various executives, parts of the business were not aligned on the legal purpose being the dominant one, with the board using the reports for a variety of functions. This further highlights that courts will not hesitate to disregard witness testimony where there is contradictory contextual evidence, and underscores the importance of ensuring whole-of-business alignment in treating documents in a practical sense as being for a legal purpose, rather than simply agreeing that they are.

    Implications

    This decision highlights the challenges in seeking to claim privilege over investigation reports and root cause analyses that follow material events, such as cyber incidents, and demonstrates that oral testimony, including statements of individuals’ subjective intentions, will not necessarily be determinative of the question of whether a legal purpose is dominant.

    It demonstrates the importance of carefully considering the purpose(s) that the report is intended to serve before it is commissioned. Where it is likely to be used for multiple purposes, separate, dedicated reports may be more appropriate. Where it is intended that the dominant purpose of any report is a legal one, it is critical that the entire business is aligned on that purpose and that no steps are taken, such as making public statements or statements to regulators, that could compromise that alignment by exposing the existence of another non-legal purpose.

    As noted above, Medibank has sought leave to appeal the court’s decision in relation to the reports by Deloitte.

    Practical steps to take

    When an investigation report is commissioned for a legal purpose, it is important to:

    • Go beyond declarations of privilege: ensure that there is alignment across the business on the dominance of the legal purpose and that the business acts consistently with that alignment, including by:
      • ensuring that the terms of reference and engagement are formulated to confine the scope of the report to legal advice;
      • avoiding or otherwise limiting public statements or statements to regulators that could compromise that alignment, eg by suggesting the existence of material non-legal purposes or by waiving any privilege that subsists in the report; and
      • communicating through appropriate legal channels, including ensuring that internal or external lawyers, rather than the board, have responsibility for oversight of the investigation.
    • Consider commissioning separate investigation reports: where a factual investigation is intended to be taken for legal and non-legal purposes, consider commissioning separate legal and non-legal reports. The utility and effect of this approach will depend, at least in part, on the extent to which the content of each report will differ. The courts will be sceptical of so-called privileged reports that cover matters of operational significance that are not also covered in the non-privileged report.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cortez Masto Joins Press Conference Highlighting Bipartisan, Bicameral Legislation to Invest in Local Law Enforcement

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto

    FTPs for TV stations is available here.

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) spoke at a press conference to highlight the urgent need to pass her bipartisan Invest to Protect Act. She was joined by Representatives Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.-05) and John Rutherford (R-Fla.-05) who introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives, as well as by local law enforcement officers.

    “Local police departments are the backbone of public safety for communities across the Silver State, but in conversations with law enforcement officers, I have heard over and over again that they need more resources,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “This bipartisan, bicameral legislation gives small departments across the country a boost in funding for training, recruitment, and mental health support. It’s commonsense, and it’s time to get it done.”

    “The bipartisan Invest to Protect Act will make critical investments in our departments and ensure that our police officers in smaller towns across New Jersey, and our nation, have the resources and training they need to keep themselves and communities safe,” said Congressman Gottheimer. “If you want to make something better, you don’t get there by cutting or defunding. You need to make smart, targeted investments. You must invest, not defund. You can have both justice and public safety. You don’t have to pick between one or the other. This bipartisan legislation will help ensure we have both and protect our communities and officers.”

    “Small police forces are often the most resource constrained agencies and suffer the most from a lack of operational equipment and services,” said Congressman Rutherford. “As a former sheriff and career law enforcement officer, I am proud to join Congressman Gottheimer to reintroduce the Invest to Protect Act in the House to make trainings, retention tools, and mental health care resources more readily available for departments with fewer than 175 officers. It’s important we streamline the grant process for smaller law enforcement agencies to provide them with the resources they need to protect our communities nationwide.”

    The majority of law enforcement agencies in the U.S. are smaller than 175 full-time sworn officers, including all of Nevada’s rural sheriff’s departments and key suburban departments such as the Sparks Police Department. In Nevada and nationwide, these small departments often struggle to access critical resources. Cortez Masto’s bipartisan Invest to Protect Act would establish a grant program through the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program to provide $250 million specifically to help these small law enforcement agencies make meaningful investments in their officers and communities. This bill is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police Organizations.

    As the former top law enforcement official in Nevada, Senator Cortez Masto has been a leading advocate in the Senate for our police officers and is part of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus. She has secured historic funding for the Byrne JAG grant program, the leading source of criminal justice funding in the country. Her bipartisan bills to combat the crisis of law enforcement suicide and provide mental health resources to police officers have been signed into law by presidents of both parties. Her BADGES for Native Communities Act, to support the Bureau of Indian Affairs with law enforcement recruitment and retention, passed the Senate last Congress.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kennedy reintroduces bill to stop online exploitation of America’s children

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
    WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today reintroduced the Targeting Child Predators Act to help stop children from being exploited online. 
    “Innocent children are uniquely vulnerable to wicked people who commit one of the worst crimes imaginable in the internet’s shadows. Law enforcement should have every resource at their disposal to stop and punish child predators, and this bill delivers a critical tool for the good guys,” said Kennedy. 
    Current law gives suspected predators opportunity to evade prosecution and criminal accountability when electronic communication service (ECS) providers alert them to potential law enforcement investigations. 
    When law enforcement investigates online child exploitation cases, they typically match an IP address to a suspected predator. Officials may then use this evidence to obtain a subpoena to collect the name of the person attached to the IP address from an ECS provider.
    ECS providers comply with these subpoenas, but often inform users of the search—in these cases, suspected child predators—of the request. Suspects who discover that law enforcement is investigating them regularly erase their internet search footprints, which can make prosecuting online child predators nearly impossible.
    The Targeting Child Predators Act would allow law enforcement to block ECS providers from notifying suspected child predators that they are being investigated for at least 180 days if law enforcement certifies that doing so is necessary to prevent destruction of evidence, flight and other misconduct.
    Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) cosponsored the bill.
    “We live in a digitally dominated world and while there are many positive benefits that come with that, there’s also a dark underbelly. This legislation would support law enforcement’s efforts to mitigate the dangerous threats that lurk behind the screens we look at daily and safeguard Texas children from harm,” said Cornyn. 
    The Targeting Child Predators Act does not expand what type of evidence law enforcement can collect and allows for judicial review of a nondisclosure requirement attached to a subpoena.
    The Child Rescue Coalition, Raven, Major County Sheriffs of America and the National Fraternal Order of Police support the Targeting Child Predators Act. 
    “The TCPA will streamline data access for law enforcement in child exploitation cases, without compromising their investigations, or repeatedly burdening the Judiciary, enabling quicker investigations to protect and rescue victims from online predators,” said Greg Schiller, CEO, Child Rescue Coalition.
    “This bill will prevent tech companies from notifying child predators of subpoena service which will keep vital evidence from being destroyed and increase law enforcement’s ability to rescue victims,” said Jennifer Dunton, Director of Legislative Affairs at Raven.
    “MCSA commends Senator Kennedy for introducing the Targeting Child Predators Act. If those who target and exploit children are tipped off when a criminal investigation is underway, they can destroy evidence and as a result complicate the recovery of evidence. This bill would help to minimize this possibility and improve our chances of putting them behind bars. We encourage Congress to act on this important legislation,” said Sheriff Bill Brown, President, Major County Sheriffs of America. 
    “The ‘Targeting Child Predators Act’ makes a common-sense change that ensures that law enforcement has the necessary time to conduct thorough investigations and build strong cases against offenders. This change would ultimately help remove predators from our neighborhoods and make our internet communities safer for children and families,” said Patrick Yoes, National President, National Fraternal Order of Police. 
    The full bill text of the Targeting Child Predators Act is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cornyn Requests Full Retroactive Payments for Texans Under Social Security Fairness Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Texas John Cornyn

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) sent a letter with a group of his Senate colleagues to Social Security Administrator (SSA) Leland Dudek requesting that SSA review agency policy and grant maximum retroactive payments to all qualified spouses under the Social Security Fairness Act (SSFA). The SSFA, which Sen. Cornyn voted for, restores earned Social Security benefits for millions of employees and their spouses by repealing the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset. The SSFA also provided for retroactive payments to January 2024.

    The Senators wrote: “Over the past few weeks, several constituents have contacted our offices regarding the retroactivity of their spousal benefits under the Social Security Fairness Act. The law provides for retroactivity to the year the bill was introduced, first being applied to the January 2024 payment.”

    “We ask SSA to review the agency’s policy and grant maximum retroactivity payments to all spouses who were protected on prior applications and wrongly advised by employees of SSA not to apply for spousal benefits when they first inquired.” 

    “We appreciate your swift implementation of the law and SSA’s progress in adjusting more than 2 million records to date. We look forward to continuing to work together on behalf of those who have been affected by this error.”

    The full text of the letter is available here and below. The letter was led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and also signed by Senators Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) and John Fetterman (D-PA).

    April 1, 2025

    The Honorable Leland Dudek

    Acting Commissioner

    Social Security Administration

    6401 Security Boulevard

    Baltimore, MD 21235

    Dear Acting Commissioner Dudek,

    We write to you concerning an issue related to the Social Security Fairness Act (Public Law No:118-273). Over the past few weeks, several constituents have contacted our offices regarding the retroactivity of their spousal benefits under the Social Security Fairness Act. The law provides for retroactivity to the year the bill was introduced, first being applied to the January 2024 payment. These spouses, including widows and widowers, have shared with me that when they contacted the Social Security Administration (SSA) years ago inquiring into spousal benefits, they were told by SSA employees that their spousal benefits would be reduced to $0 due to the Government Pension Offset; and therefore, there was no need to file an application for spousal benefits. Now, these same spouses are being told to file a claim for spousal benefits yet are only being granted a maximum of six months retroactivity from their most recent date of contact with the SSA. According to SSA policy, GN00204.010A5 if the spouse was protected on the worker’s application and never properly closed out, the protective filing remains open indefinitely. Subsequently, per GN00204.025B1, the claimant should be given the opportunity to elect the earlier filing date to allow for maximum retroactivity.

    As noted, we have assisted spouses who have contacted our offices questioning the retroactivity. They have shared that even if they question the retroactivity with the SSA employees during their recent appointment to apply for benefits, the applicants are only granted six-months retroactivity from the most recent contact date. We ask SSA to review the agency’s policy and grant maximum retroactivity payments to all spouses who were protected on prior applications and wrongly advised by employees of SSA not to apply for spousal benefits when they first inquired.

    Thank you for taking the time to address this important matter. We appreciate your swift implementation of the law and SSA’s progress in adjusting more than 2 million records to date. We look forward to continuing to work together on behalf of those who have been affected by this error.

    Sincerely,

    /s/

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance

    Source: The White House

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

    Section 1.  Purpose.  The commercial shipbuilding capacity and maritime workforce of the United States has been weakened by decades of Government neglect, leading to the decline of a once strong industrial base while simultaneously empowering our adversaries and eroding United States national security.  Both our allies and our strategic competitors produce ships for a fraction of the cost needed in the United States.  Recent data shows that the United States constructs less than one percent of commercial ships globally, while the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is responsible for producing approximately half.
    Rectifying these issues requires a comprehensive approach that includes securing consistent, predictable, and durable Federal funding, making United States-flagged and built vessels commercially competitive in international commerce, rebuilding America’s maritime manufacturing capabilities (the Maritime Industrial Base), and expanding and strengthening the recruitment, training, and retention of the relevant workforce.

    Sec2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to revitalize and rebuild domestic maritime industries and workforce to promote national security and economic prosperity.

    Sec3.  Maritime Action Plan.  (a)  Within 210 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) the APNSA deems appropriate, shall submit a Maritime Action Plan (MAP) to the President, through the APNSA and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director) to achieve the policy set forth in this order.
    (b)  The OMB Director, in coordination with the APNSA, shall be responsible for all legislative, regulatory, and fiscal assessments related to the MAP.  
    (c)  The MAP shall, to the extent permissible and consistent with applicable law, including the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 8301–8305), reflect actions taken pursuant to sections 4 through 21 of this order.

    Sec4.  Ensure the Security and Resilience of the Maritime Industrial Base.  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide to the APNSA and the OMB Director for inclusion in the MAP an assessment of options both for the use of available authorities and resources, such as Defense Production Act Title III authorities, and for the use of private capital to the maximum extent possible to invest in and expand the Maritime Industrial Base including, but not limited to, investment and expansion of commercial and defense shipbuilding capabilities, component supply chains, ship repair and marine transportation capabilities, port infrastructure, and the adjacent workforce.  The Secretary of Defense shall pursue using the Office of Strategic Capital loan program to improve the shipbuilding industrial base.  As part of their assessment, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
    (a)  identify key maritime components in the supply chain that are essential for rebuilding and expanding the Maritime Industrial Base and that should be prioritized for investment;
    (b)  ensure that their recommendations of public and private investments are made according to a clear metric, derived in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, of return on invested capital for the United States taxpayer and to the economic and national security of the United States; and
    (c)  ensure that their recommendations take into consideration the projected increases to commercial and defense capabilities, the projected growth in economic activity, and the projected benefits for taxpayers and the workforce.

    Sec5Actions in the Investigation of the PRC’s Unfair Targeting of Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors. (a)  With respect to the actions, if any, that the USTR determines to take consistent with the USTR’s notice of public hearing entitled Proposed Action in Section 301 Investigation of the PRC’s Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance, 90 FedReg. 10843 (February 27, 2025), the USTR shall:
    (i)   coordinate with appropriate agencies to collect additional information, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, in support of administering such actions; and 
    (ii)  coordinate with the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to take appropriate steps to enforce any restriction, fee, penalty, or duty imposed pursuant to such actions.
    (b)  Based on the USTR’s determinations arising out of its Section 301 investigation into the PRC’s targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors, the USTR shall also consider taking all necessary steps permitted by law to propose the following actions:
    (i)   tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes manufactured, assembled, or made using components of PRC origin, or manufactured anywhere in the world by a company owned, controlled, or substantially influenced by a PRC national; and
    (ii)  tariffs on other cargo handling equipment.

    Sec6.  Enforce Collection of Harbor Maintenance Fee and Other Charges.  In order to prevent cargo carriers from circumventing the Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF) on imported goods through the practice of making port in Canada or Mexico and sending their cargo into the United States through land borders, and to ensure the collection of other charges as applicable, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all necessary steps, including proposing new legislation, as permitted by law to:
    (a)  require all foreign-origin cargo arriving by vessel to clear the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry process at a United States port of entry for security and collection of all applicable duties, customs, taxes, fees, interest, and other charges; and
    (b)  ensure any foreign-origin cargo first arriving by vessel to North America clearing the CBP process at an inland location from the country of land transit (Canada or Mexico) is assessed applicable customs, duties, taxes, fees (including the HMF), interest, and other charges plus a 10 percent service fee for additional costs to the CBP, so long as the cargo being shipped into the United States is not substantially transformed from its condition at the time of arrival into the country of land transit (with the discretion for such decisions to be determined by CBP).

    Sec7.  Engage Allies and Partners to Align Trade Policies.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the USTR, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, shall engage treaty allies, partners, and other like-minded countries around the world with respect to their potential imposition of any actions taken pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of this order.  The USTR shall deliver an engagement plan and progress report on these engagements to the President.

    Sec8.  Reduce Dependence on Adversaries through Allies and Partners.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, shall recommend to the APNSA and the OMB Director for inclusion in the MAP all available incentives to help shipbuilders domiciled in allied nations partner to undertake capital investment in the United States to help strengthen the shipbuilding capacity of the United States.

    Sec9.  Launch a Maritime Security Trust Fund.  In conjunction with the formulation of the President’s Budget, the OMB Director shall, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, develop a legislative proposal, which shall be described in detail in the MAP, to establish a Maritime Security Trust Fund that can serve as a reliable funding source to deliver consistent support for MAP programs.  This proposal shall consider how new or existing tariff revenue, fines, fees, or tax revenue could further the goal of establishing a more reliable, dedicated funding source for programs support by the MAP.

    Sec10.  Shipbuilding Financial Incentives Program.  In conjunction with the formulation of the President’s Budget and consistent with the findings of the report required under section 12 of this order, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit a legislative proposal to the APNSA and the OMB Director, which shall be described in detail in the MAP, that establishes a financial incentives program with broad flexibility to incentivize private investment in the construction of commercial components, parts, and vessels; capital improvements to commercial vessel shipyards; capital improvements to commercial vessel repair facilities and drydocks through grants; and Federal Credit Reform Act-compliant loans and loan guarantees.  Such proposal may augment or replace existing programs with similar purpose including the Small Shipyard Grant Program and the Federal Ship Financing (Title XI) Program.

    Sec11.  Establish Maritime Prosperity Zones.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall deliver a plan to the President through the APNSA for inclusion in the MAP that identifies opportunities to incentivize and facilitate domestic and allied investment in United States maritime industries and waterfront communities through establishment of maritime prosperity zones.  The proposal shall: (a) model these maritime prosperity zones on the opportunity zones established pursuant to section 13823 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Public Law 115-97, 131 Stat. 2054), which I signed into law during my first Administration;
    (b) include stipulations for appropriate regulatory relief in the establishment of such zones; and
    (c) provide for zones that are outside of traditional coastal shipbuilding and ship repair centers and are geographically diverse, including river regions as well as the Great Lakes.

    Sec12.  Report on Maritime Industry Needs.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of other agencies as appropriate, shall deliver a report to the OMB Director and APNSA for inclusion in the MAP that inventories Federal programs that could be used to sustain and grow the supply of and demand for the United States maritime industry.  The report and inventory shall include:
    (a)  any Federal programs that provide financial and regulatory incentives for United States shipping, shipbuilding, and shipbuilding supply chains, including the training of shipbuilders and United States-credentialed mariners; 
    (b)  Maritime Administration programs such as the Tanker Security Program, Cable Security Fleet, Maritime Security Programs, Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance Program, Title XI, Assistance to Small Shipyards, Port Infrastructure Development Program, the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA), and programs that support the State Maritime Academies;
    (c)  existing domestic cargo preference laws, including the Military Cargo Preference Act of 1904, as amended, (10 U.S.C. 2631) and the Cargo Preference Act of 1954, as amended, (46 U.S.C. 55304), and whether and how they can be used to ensure that United States cargo is transported on United States-built and flagged vessels, including a review of the existing waiver process and all current waivers to ensure they are consistent with the promotion of American domestic shipping;
    (d)  other available means that could further support the industry, including modifications of existing programs, establishment of new programs, and tax and regulatory relief; and
    (e)  in coordination with the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget, the costs and benefits of increased cargo preference rates, including on liquid cargo carriers, tankers, and military useful vessels, and options for increasing cargo preference compliance and directing open market procurement of shipping to meet urgent military needs for maritime vessels.

    Sec13.  Expand Mariner Training and Education.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall deliver a report to the President through the APNSA for inclusion in the MAP with recommendations to address workforce challenges in the maritime sector through maritime educational institutions and workforce transitions.  
    (a)  In preparing their report, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult, as needed, with industry stakeholders including private industry and labor organizations. 
    (b)  The report shall:
    (i)    include the current number of credentialed mariners and estimate the additional credentialed mariners required to support the policies described in this order;
    (ii)   analyze the impact of establishing new and expanding existing merchant marine academies as a means of educating, training, and certifying the additional credentialed merchant mariners estimated under subsection (b)(i) of this section;
    (iii)  identify any requirements for credentialing mariners that are unnecessary, insufficient, or unduly burdensome and provide recommendations for reform;
    (iv)   inventory existing educational and technical training grants and scholarships to colleges and vocational-technical training institutions for critical shipbuilding specialties and other maritime studies, and provide recommendations for enhancement; and
    (v)    assess the United States Coast Guard credentialing program applicability to United States Navy Active Duty and Reserve sailors to increase opportunities for sailors to transfer into the Merchant Marine with validated skills.
    (c)  Consistent with the findings of the report and in conjunction with the formulation of the President’s Budget, the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall deliver a legislative proposal to the APNSA and the OMB Director that:
    (i)    reflects the recommendations of the report required under this section;
    (ii)   establishes national maritime scholarships to send promising maritime experts abroad to learn cutting edge techniques and subjects, such as innovative maritime logistics, clean fuels and advanced nuclear energy, human-machine teaming, and additive manufacturing and other advanced technologies; and
    (iii)  offers scholarships to maritime experts from allied countries to teach at United States institutions. 

    Sec14.  Modernize the United States Merchant Marine Academy.  
    (a) The Secretary of Transportation shall: 
    (i) within 30 days of this order consistent with applicable law and available appropriations, take action to hire the necessary facilities staff and reprogram budgetary resources needed to execute urgent deferred maintenance projects and any other mission critical repair works at the USMMA;
    (ii) take immediate action to finalize a long-term master facilities plan (LMFP) for the modernization of the USMMA campus and submit such plan to the APNSA and OMB Director for concurrence; and
    (iii) within 90 days of the concurrence described in subsection (a)(ii) of this section, in consultation with the Department of Government Efficiency, submit a 5-year capital improvement plan (CIP) consistent with the LMFP to the APNSA and OMB Director that includes capital project budgets, schedules, and sequencing, as well as an inventory of deferred maintenance items necessary to sustain campus operations through completion of the CIP.
    (b) All actions taken pursuant to this section shall be detailed in the MAP.

    Sec15.  Improve Procurement Efficiency.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the National Science Foundation shall develop a proposal for improved acquisition strategies processes for United States Government vessels and submit such proposal to APNSA and the OMB Director for inclusion in the MAP.  The proposal shall:      (a) have as its objective providing American shipbuilders with market forecasting needed to justify investments in infrastructure, workforce, and intellectual property to meet United States demand;
    (b) include reforms recommended by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security related to:
    (i) staff structure and innovations in acquisition strategies that will improve Federal vessel procurement; and
    (ii) reductions of the layers of approval needed to execute, build, and improve the vessel acquisition process, including by utilizing commercial acquisition and modular design practices that reduce complexity and prevent frequent changes to ship designs;
    (c) identify for elimination excessive requirements, including the number of Government reviews and onerous regulations that add to ship design and acquisition delays; and
    (d)  consider use of broad industry standards and American-made readily available parts and components to drive up production volume while shrinking the iterative design process, which historically has led to delays and cost increases.  

    Sec16.  Improve Government Efficiency.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Department of Government Efficiency shall begin a separate review of the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security vessel procurement processes and deliver a proposal to the President, through the APNSA for inclusion in the MAP, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these processes.   

    Sec17.  Increase the Fleet of Commercial Vessels Trading Internationally under the flag of the United States.  Within 180 days of the date of this order, in conjunction with the formulation of the President’s Budget and consistent with the findings of the report required under section 12 of this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, deliver a legislative proposal to the APNSA and OMB Director for inclusion in the MAP that:
    (a)  is designed to ensure that adequate cubed footage and gross tonnage of United States-flagged commercial vessels can be called upon in times of crisis, while limiting the likelihood of Government waste;
    (b)  provides incentives that will:
    (i)   grow the fleet of United States built, crewed, and flagged vessels that serve as readily deployable assets for national security purposes; and
    (ii)  increase the participation of United States commercial vessels in international trade; and
    (c)  enhances existing subsidies to include coverage of certain construction or modification costs in a manner designed to enhance incentives for the commercial shipping industry to operate militarily useful ships that trade internationally under the flag of the United States.

    Sec18.  Ensure the Security and Leadership of Arctic Waterways.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall develop a strategy that identifies the vision, goals, and objectives necessary to secure arctic waterways and enable American prosperity in the face of evolving arctic security challenges and associated risks, and deliver it to the APNSA for inclusion in the MAP.

    Sec19.  Shipbuilding Review.  Within 45 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a review of shipbuilding for United States Government use and submit a report to the President with recommendations to increase the number of participants and competitors within United States shipbuilding, and to reduce cost overruns and production delays for surface, subsurface, and unmanned programs.  This report must include separate itemized and prioritized lists of recommendations for the United States Army, Navy, and Coast Guard and shall be included in the MAP.

    Sec20.  Deregulatory Initiatives.  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a review of their regulations, and implementation thereof, across all components pertaining to the domestic commercial maritime fleet and maritime port access to determine where each agency may be able to deregulate within the framework of Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation), to reduce unnecessary costs and clear barriers to emerging technology and related efficiencies.  Each agency will submit a report of its findings to the OMB Director and to the APNSA for inclusion in the MAP.

    Sec21.  Inactive Reserve Fleet.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review and issue guidance on the funding, retention, support, and mobilization of a robust inactive reserve fleet.  This review and guidance shall be delivered to the APNSA for inclusion in the MAP. 

    Sec22.  Coordination.  Unless otherwise specified in this order, the plans, reports, reviews, and recommendations that are required to be submitted to the President by this order shall be developed through interagency coordination in accordance with National Security Presidential Memorandum 1 of January 20, 2025 (Organization of the National Security Council and Subcommittees), or its successors.

    Sec23.  Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

    Sec24.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
        April 9, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Addressing Risks from Susman Godfrey

    Source: The White House

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

    Section 1.  Background.  Lawyers and law firms that engage in activities detrimental to critical American interests should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should their conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts.  My Administration must also take appropriate and necessary measures to guard against the actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that arise when the Government funds, engages with, or otherwise devotes resources to law firms and their clients that engage in conduct undermining critical American interests and priorities.
    I have determined that action is necessary to address the significant risks, egregious conduct, and conflicts of interest associated with Susman Godfrey LLP (Susman).  Susman spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.  Susman also funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology, and it supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race.
    Susman itself engages in unlawful discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race.  For example, Susman administers a program where it offers financial awards and employment opportunities only to “students of color.” My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process.  Those who engage in blatant discrimination and other activities inconsistent with the interests of the United States should not have access to our Nation’s secrets nor be deemed responsible stewards of any Federal funds.

    Sec2.  Security Clearance Review.  (a)  The Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Susman, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest. 
    (b)  The Office of Management and Budget shall identify all Government goods, property, material, and services, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, provided for the benefit of Susman.  The heads of agencies providing such material or services shall, to the extent permitted by law, expeditiously cease such provision. 

    Sec3.  Contracting.  (a)  To prevent the transfer of taxpayer dollars to Federal contractors whose earnings subsidize, among other things, activities that are not aligned with American interests, including racial discrimination, Government contracting agencies shall, to the extent permissible by law, require Government contractors to disclose any business they do with Susman and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract. 
    (b)  The heads of agencies shall review all contracts with Susman or with entities that disclose doing business with Susman under subsection (a) of this section.  To the extent permitted by law, the heads of agencies shall:
    (i)   take appropriate steps to terminate any contract, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, for which Susman has been hired to perform any service; and
    (ii)  otherwise align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States; with the goals and priorities of my Administration as expressed in executive actions, especially Executive Order 14147 of January 20, 2025 (Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government); and as heads of agencies deem appropriate.  Within 30 days of the date of this order, agencies shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget an assessment of contracts with Susman or with entities that do business with Susman effective as of the date of this order and any actions taken with respect to those contracts in accordance with this order. 

    Sec4.  Racial Discrimination.  Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the action authorized by section 4 of Executive Order 14230 of March 6, 2025 (Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP).  

    Sec5.  Personnel.  (a)  The heads of agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide guidance limiting official access from Federal Government buildings to employees of Susman when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States.  In addition, the heads of agencies shall provide guidance limiting Government employees acting in their official capacity from engaging with Susman employees to ensure consistency with the national security and other interests of the United States.
    (b)  Agency officials shall, to the extent permitted by law, refrain from hiring employees of Susman, absent a waiver from the head of the agency, made in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, that such hire will not threaten the national security of the United States. 

    Sec6.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
        April 9, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation in the Defense Industrial Base

    Source: The White House

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

    Section 1.  Purpose.  As Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, I am committed to ensuring that the United States military possesses the most lethal warfighting capabilities in the world.  America’s defense industrial base is central to this effort.  Similarly, the defense acquisition workforce is a national strategic asset that will be decisive in any conflict, where the factory floor can be just as significant as the battlefield.
    Unfortunately, after years of misplaced priorities and poor management, our defense acquisition system does not provide the speed and flexibility our Armed Forces need to have decisive advantages in the future.  In order to strengthen our military edge, America must deliver state‐of‐the‐art capabilities at speed and scale through a comprehensive overhaul of this system.

    Sec2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States Government to accelerate defense procurement and revitalize the defense industrial base to restore peace through strength.  To achieve this, the United States will rapidly reform our antiquated defense acquisition processes with an emphasis on speed, flexibility, and execution.  We will also modernize the duties and composition of the defense acquisition workforce, as well as incentivize and reward risk-taking and innovation from these personnel.

    Sec3.  Acquisition Process Reform.  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the President a plan to reform the Department of Defense’s acquisition processes that, to the maximum extent possible, incorporates the following:
    (a)  Utilization of existing authorities to expedite acquisitions throughout the Department of Defense, including a first preference for commercial solutions and a general preference for Other Transactions Authority, application of Rapid Capabilities Office policies, or any other authorities or pathways to promote streamlined acquisitions under the Adaptative Acquisition Framework.  Starting upon issuance of this order, and during the formation of the plan, the Secretary of Defense shall prioritize use of these authorities in all pending Department of Defense contracting actions and require their application, where appropriate and consistent with applicable law, for all Department of Defense contracting actions pursued while the plan directed by this section is under consideration. 
    (b)  A detailed process review of each functional support role within the acquisition workforce to eliminate unnecessary tasks, reduce duplicative approvals, and centralize decision-making.  These reviews should also include evaluations of program managers, contracting officers, engineering authorities, financial managers, cost estimators, and logisticians.
    (c)  A detailed process by which the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Service Acquisition Executives, and Component Acquisition Executives can effectively manage risk for all acquisition programs through a formal steering board known as a Configuration Steering Board. 

    Sec4.  Internal Regulations Review.  The Secretary of Defense shall oversee the review of and, as appropriate, propose revisions to relevant Department of Defense instructions, implementation guides, manuals, and regulations relating to acquisition to: 
    (a)  Eliminate or revise any unnecessary supplemental regulations or any other internal guidance, such as relevant parts of the Financial Management Regulation and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement.
    (b)  Promote expedited and streamlined acquisitions.  Where new supplemental regulations or internal guidance is proposed, the Secretary of Defense shall apply the ten-for-one rule as described in Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation).

    Sec5.  Acquisition Workforce Reform.  Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, and Component Acquisition Executives, shall develop and submit to the President a plan for consideration to reform, right-size, and train the acquisition workforce that includes the following components:
    (a)  The restructuring of performance evaluation metrics for acquisition workforce members to include the ability to demonstrate and apply a first consideration of commercial solutions, adaptive acquisition pathways through the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, and iterative requirements based on the perspective of the end user.
    (b)  An analysis of acquisition workforce staff levels required to develop, deliver, and sustain warfighting capabilities.   
    (c)  The establishment of field training teams by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, led by senior acquisition executives or managers with expertise in innovative acquisition authorities and commercial solutions, and modeled after field training teams authorized by section 832 of Public Law 118-159 (10 U.S.C. 1749).  These teams should provide hands-on guidance, deliver templates and case studies of successful approaches for implementing innovative acquisition authorities, and should assist integrated functional program teams in completing acquisition and sustainment tasks.
    (d)  The development and implementation of policies, procedures, and tools to incentivize acquisition officials to, in good faith, utilize innovative acquisition authorities and take measured and calculated risks.

    Sec6.  Major Defense Acquisition Program Review.  (a)  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Deputy Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and Component Acquisition Executives, shall complete a comprehensive review of all major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs), as defined in section 4201 of title 10, United States Code, to determine if any such programs are inconsistent with the policy objectives set forth in section 2 of this order.  As part of the review of all MDAPs:
    (i)   any program more than 15 percent behind schedule based on the current Acquisition Program Baseline (APB), 15 percent over cost based on the current APB, unable to meet any key performance parameters, or unaligned with the Secretary of Defense’s mission priorities, will be considered for potential cancellation.  The Secretary of Defense shall submit the potential cancellation list to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for future budget determinations.
    (ii)  the Secretary of Defense shall provide a listing of all MDAPs contracts, along with performance against original and approved Government cost estimates to the Director of OMB for review within 90 days from the date of this order.
    (b)  Following this comprehensive review of MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense shall provide the Director of OMB with a plan for reviewing all remaining major systems, as defined in section 3041 of title 10, United States Code, that are not MDAPs.

    Sec7.  Requirements.  The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Deputy Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall complete a comprehensive review of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System within 180 days of the date of this order, with the goal of streamlining and accelerating acquisition.

    Sec8.  Definitions.  For purposes of this order:
    (a)  The term “Adaptive Acquisition Framework” means the series of acquisition pathways that enable the workforce to deliver “effective, suitable, survivable, sustainable, and affordable solutions to the end user in a timely manner,” as stated in Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02. 
    (b)  The term “Acquisition Program Baseline” means the formally established cost, schedule, and performance baselines of a program, as described in Department of Defense Instruction 5000.85.
    (c)  The term “commercial solutions” means any of the methods for procurement of a commercial product or service described in part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, subpart 212.2 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, or subpart 212.70 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; or other industry solutions funded by private investment that meet military needs.  
    (d)  The term “Configuration Steering Board” means an annual review of potential requirements changes, critical intelligence parameter changes, and any significant technical configuration changes as described in Department of Defense Instruction 5000.85.
    (e)  The term “innovative acquisition authorities” means Other Transactions Authority, commercial solutions, application of Rapid Capabilities Office policies, or any other authorities or pathways to promote streamlined acquisitions under the Adaptive Acquisition Framework. 
    (f)  The term “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System” means the formally established Department of Defense process used to identify, assess, and prioritize joint military capability requirements across the Department of Defense.
    (g)  The term “Other Transactions Authority” means the ability of the United States Government to enter into contracts other than standard contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.
    (h)  The term “Rapid Capabilities Office” means the Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, Naval Air Warfare Rapid Capabilities Office, Department of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, or Space Force Rapid Capabilities Office. 

    Sec9.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
    (ii)  the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
        April 9, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Off ‘ya bike: Driver gets ride impounded

    Source: New Zealand Police (District News)

    A man on a moped who failed to stop for Police will have to find another way of getting around town after his scooter was impounded.

    Just after 1am, Police on patrol in Wesley noticed a suspicious moped driving around the area and signalled for it to stop.

    Auckland City West Area Commander, Inspector Alisse Robertson, says the driver didn’t stop, and instead fled on the moped around the Sandringham and Mount Roskill areas using the walkways.

    “The rider used alleyways and parks to avoid detection, however the Police Eagle helicopter was able to provide commentary as the moped driver eventually abandoned the bike in Stoddard Road and ran off on foot.

    “Cordons were put in place and the Police dog unit has tracked the alleged offender to where he was hiding behind a property on Glenarm Avenue.”

    Inspector Robertson says the driver was quickly taken into custody without incident.

    “His moped has been impounded for six months and enquiries are ongoing.

    “Police are committed to ensuring the community is safe, especially on our roads.

    “We ask anybody who witnesses antisocial road behaviour to contact Police, on 111 if it is happening currently, or 105 if it is after the fact.”

    Information can also be provided anonymously via Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.

    ENDS.

    Holly McKay/NZ Police

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Pfluger’s Bills to Counter the Chinese Communist Party’s Influence in America Pass Through Committee

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, participated in the full committee legislative markup. The markup included two of Chairman Pfluger’s bills, the “Countering Transnational Repression Act of 2025” and the “DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes Act.” Both bills passed through committee by voice with bipartisan support.

    In his remarks on the “Countering Transnational Repression Act of 2025”, Chairman Pfluger said in part, “The Chinese Communist Party, the Iranian regime, and other malign entities have reached into American soil to silence American citizens and residents who defend human rights and advocate for free speech. These unacceptable acts of hostility are a direct challenge to our nation’s sovereignty and the rule of law, and the U.S. government must respond to defend the homeland…A proactive approach is crucial and especially urgent considering the Chinese Communist Party’s repressive activities, which include an illegal CCP pseudo-police station in New York City the Justice Department says was used to monitor and intimidate dissidents.”

    Watch Chairman Pfluger’s full remarks on the “Countering Transnational Repression Act of 2025” HERE.

    In his remarks on the “DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes Act”, Chairman Pfluger said in part,I am deeply concerned about the threats the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) poses to our homeland. National security experts and law enforcement officials have continuously raised alarms about the CCP’s increasing subversive activities inside our country through organizations like the CCP’s Confucious Institutes and their affiliate groups…This bill would play a vital role in protecting our students, our intellectual property, and our national security.”

    Watch Chairman Pfluger’s full remarks on the “DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes Act” HERE.

    Background:

    In March, Chairman Pfluger reintroduced the “Countering Transnational Repression Act of 2025″ to combat the threat of transnational repression within the United States by strengthening the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) response and coordination to these threats.

    Chairman Pfluger also penned an op-ed in the Washington Times outlining the threat of transnational repression in the United States and the need for his legislation. Chairman Pfluger’s constituent, Dr. Bob Fu, has been directly impacted by transnational repression and detailed this in a Wall Street Journal op-ed he recently wrote.

    Earlier this year, Chairman Pfluger also introduced the

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: High Volume Central Oregon Fentanyl Trafficker Sentenced to More than 11 Years in Federal Prison

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    EUGENE, Ore.—A known, high-volume Central Oregon drug trafficker was sentenced to more than 11 years in federal prison today following a multi-agency investigation led by the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office.

    Ricky Fontaine, 32, of Bend, Oregon, was sentenced to 135 months in federal prison and five years of supervised release.

    “This case is the result of excellent collaboration among the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office Street Crimes Unit, the Deschutes County District Attorney’s Office, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Oregon,” said William M. Narus, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon. “We thank the Deschutes County District Attorney’s Office for partnering with us to prosecute this case in federal court.”

    According to court documents, on April 1, 2023, after obtaining information that Fontaine was actively selling drugs—including fentanyl—in Deschutes County, detectives from the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office Street Crimes Unit conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by Fontaine. Fontaine, who at the time of the stop had an unrelated active felony arrest warrant, attempted to walk away from the traffic stop on foot, but was quickly apprehended by the detectives.

    The detectives searched Fontaine’s vehicle and found more than 1,000 grams of fentanyl, a .22 caliber handgun, scales and drug packaging materials. The detectives also found several photographs of Fontaine posing with large quantities of packaged fentanyl pills. A few hours later, the detectives executed a second search warrant on Fontaine’s residence and found additional fentanyl pills, scales and packaging materials.

    On January 18, 2024, Fontaine was charged by superseding indictment with possessing with intent to distribute fentanyl and illegally possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. On December 4, 2024, he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute fentanyl.

    This case was investigated by the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office Street Crimes Unit with assistance from the Central Oregon Drug Enforcement Team (CODE) and Redmond Police Department. It was prosecuted by Andrew R. Doyle, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon.

    Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid 80 to 100 times more powerful than morphine and 30 to 50 times more powerful than heroin. A 3-milligram dose of fentanyl—a few grains of the substance—is enough to kill an average adult male. The wide availability of illicit fentanyl in Oregon has caused a dramatic increase in overdose deaths throughout the state.

    If you are in immediate danger, please call 911.

    If you or someone you know suffers from addiction, please call the Lines for Life substance abuse helpline at 1-800-923-4357 or visit www.linesforlife.org. Live phone support is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

    MIL Security OSI