NewzIntel.com

Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Research reveals gender bias blind spot among men in local leadership

    Source:

    26 March 2025

    Men in local leadership positions are unaware of gender leadership disparities and are less likely to challenge dominant stereotypes compared to women, suggests new research by the University of South Australia.

    UniSA researchers interviewed more than 30 people in local leadership roles in regions experiencing industrial transformation, across government, business, sporting clubs, religious organisations and academia. All participants were from communities directly affected by the closure of Australia’s automotive industry in 2017, in suburban Melbourne, northern Adelaide and Geelong. They were interviewed in 2023 about gendered stereotypes that existed when the crisis unfolded and progressed, as well as when COVID hit.

    The findings suggest that women and men leaders agreed on what makes a good leader. However, women experienced daily impacts related to gender leadership stereotypes and actively worked to break down these biases. On the other hand, men leaders tended to be unaware of gender differences, believing they didn’t exist.

    Lead researcher Dr Lynette Washington says the men in the study largely accepted dominant gender leadership norms without questioning them, limiting their ability to push for alternative leadership styles which might assist to drive real change in regions undergoing a major industrial shift.

    “The thing that was most striking was that when we spoke to women, they immediately identified that they were impacted by stereotypes and they undertook detailed, sophisticated work to deconstruct those ideas. They understood how stereotypes impacted them, they thought about that impact regularly and deeply, and it was very much front of mind for them,” she says.

    “When we asked the men about gender bias, they didn’t believe that it existed for women or men leaders. And because of that, they couldn’t deconstruct these ideas to understand how they functioned and impacted people in the workplace.”

    The research was centred around the concept of ‘place-based leadership’, a collaborative, community-led approach to leadership that aims to improve the social and economic outcomes for a specific community.

    Dr Washington says place-based leadership is not much so much about the job a leader is doing but the way they’re doing it – with an emphasis on collaboration, leading through persuasion, soft power and networking.

    “It’s about their understanding and care of the place. Many place-based leaders live in the place they lead and key to being a placed-based leader is having a connection or a personal investment,” she says.

    “The findings of our study suggest that greater awareness of gender in leadership would help create more inclusive and effective leadership and this could lead to fairer outcomes.”

    One of the research participants shared her experience with gender bias in local government. 

    “The first time I stood up to speak in council the town clerk said to me, “Well that’s very nice. Now be a good girl and sit down,” she said.

    Researchers have documented gender bias in leadership since the 1970s, a phenomenon that US researcher Dr Virginia Schein called “think manager, think male”. Dr Washington explains the issue now is that men must do more to help deconstruct bias.

    “If men can’t take that first step of acknowledging gender stereotyping in the workplace is real, they can’t do the work to address it. Women are acknowledging it and working hard to deconstruct and change it, but part of the reason it’s not progressing in the way that it needs to is that men aren’t also doing that work to the degree that is required for change,” she says.

    “Without equality in leadership, we can’t access the full wealth of knowledge, experience and ability that exists in places. Left behind places need to access the full range of skills and abilities that they hold to ensure they can meet the challenges ahead.

    “Places like the northern suburbs in Adelaide and Geelong in Victoria experienced significant disruption when the car manufacturing industry closed and were also hit hard during the pandemic. We need the best possible leadership in these places and that means challenging old ways of leading and introducing new, more effective leadership styles. One way to do that is to have a greater awareness of gender within leadership.

    “This will result in more equal outcomes across the regions.”

    To access the research paper: Washington, L., Beer, A., & Kulik, C. T. (2024). Gender, place leadership and levelling up across regions. Contemporary Social Science, 19(4), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2024.2441856

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

    Contact for interview: Dr Lynette Washington, Research Fellow, UniSA E: Lynette.Washington@unisa.edu.au

    Media contact: Melissa Keogh, Communications Officer, UniSA M: +403 659 154 E: Melissa.Keogh@unisa.edu.au

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI China: German chancellor, gov’t dismissed by president

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    Olaf Scholz (C) attends the first gathering of the 21st Bundestag in Berlin, Germany, on March 25, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his cabinet were officially dismissed by President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Tuesday afternoon.

    Scholz will remain as caretaker chancellor until a new government takes office.

    The negotiation to build a ruling coalition is underway. Germany’s conservative bloc, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU), took the lead in the country’s 2025 federal election, followed by the Social Democratic Party (SPD). The results have paved the way for a CDU/CSU and SPD coalition.

    CDU leader Friedrich Merz is expected to head the new government. He has voiced the willingness to put the government in place by Easter.

    Also on Tuesday, CDU’s Julia Kloeckner was elected as the new president of the Bundestag, the lower house of parliament.

    Born in 1972, Kloeckner served as a Bundestag member from 2002 to 2011. She held the position of Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection from 2009 to 2011. From 2018 to 2021, she served as minister of food and agriculture and again a member of the Bundestag from 2021.

    The election took place during the first gathering of the 21st Bundestag following February’s election. The first sitting marks the end of the previous electoral term and the Bundestag adopted its rules of procedure.

    The term of the current federal government concludes with the constitution of the new Bundestag. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Europe urged to unite amid US tariffs, rising debt, and big tech challenges

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    European unity is vital to tackling economic challenges ranging from new U.S. tariffs and rising public debt to the expanding influence of big tech firms, Italian political figures and analysts have said at a conference in Rome.

    The conference, titled “Governing Europe and Italy in the Age of Donald Trump,” was hosted by LUISS University on Monday evening and featured prominent speakers, including former Italian Prime Ministers Mario Monti and Giuliano Amato, Finance Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti, European Commission Vice-President Raffaele Fitto, and LUISS professors.

    “What we are seeing today is not the only time Europe has faced big challenges,” said Monti, who served as Italy’s prime minister between 2011 and 2013 during the global sovereign debt crisis. “But we must act together to confront the current challenges.”

    Earlier this month, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 25-percent tariff on aluminum, steel, and related imports, with another round set to take effect on April 2, though details remain unclear. In response, the European Union initially planned retaliatory tariffs for April 1 but postponed them by at least two weeks following a European Council meeting to allow more time for negotiations.

    On the sidelines of the conference, economics professor Pietro Reichlin told Xinhua that the Trump administration’s unpredictable tariff policies complicate the EU’s response strategies.

    Reichlin stressed the importance of understanding U.S. trade goals to reach an agreement, pointing to the EU’s surplus in goods and the U.S. strengths in services and energy as potential negotiation points.

    Italy’s Finance Minister Giorgetti warned that mounting debt and the growing influence of big tech firms – particularly U.S. giants such as Google and leading players in artificial intelligence, are increasingly limiting the policymakers’ options.

    According to Eurostat, the EU’s average debt stood at 81.6 percent of GDP at the end of the third quarter of 2024 while the eurozone recorded an average ratio of 88.1 percent. Italy’s debt-to-GDP ratio reached 136.3 percent, second only to Greece.

    Speakers stressed the need for greater cohesion within Europe to address external trade pressures, the Ukraine conflict, and internal disputes within the bloc. Amato emphasized that cooperation, not conflict, drives prosperity.

    Reichlin also stressed the importance of adapting to evolving trade dynamics with China. “Adjusting trade relations is crucial, as both sides stand to benefit from deeper engagement,” he said. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Russia, Ukraine hold parallel US-mediated talks in Saudi Arabia

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    Three days of technical-level negotiations on the details of a potential ceasefire in Ukraine concluded Tuesday without an official joint statement, as participating parties offered somewhat conflicting assessments of the talks.

    The intense parallel interactions between the United States and delegations from Ukraine and Russia on the table, including a 12-hour one between the United States and Russia on Monday, and two shorter rounds between the United States and Ukraine on Sunday and Tuesday, came as fighting on the battlefield remains intense.

    Although Washington signaled on Tuesday its willingness to continue facilitating negotiations between the warring parties, analysts remain skeptical about the prospects of such a diplomatic push, citing deep-seated distrust, conflicting demands among stakeholders, and the inherent complexities of the process.

    Conflicting assessments

    For the latest talks, which build on previous negotiations held in Saudi Arabia and subsequent phone exchanges between the presidents of the three countries, the U.S. delegation included Andrew Peek, a senior director at the White House National Security Council, and Michael Anton, a senior official from the State Department. The Russian delegation was led by Grigory Karasin, chair of the Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee, and Sergei Beseda, an advisor to the director of the Federal Security Service. Defense Minister Rustem Umerov headed the Ukrainian delegation.

    On Tuesday, hours after the U.S. and Ukrainian delegations concluded their second round of talks, the White House issued separate statements elaborating on its understanding of the parallel meetings.

    It stated that the United States had agreed separately with Russia and Ukraine to “ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea,” and to develop measures for implementing the presidents’ agreement to “ban strikes against energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine.”

    The United States, with Russia and Ukraine respectively, also “welcomes the good offices of third countries with a view toward supporting the implementation of the energy and maritime agreements” and “will continue working toward achieving a durable and lasting peace,” the statement added.

    Among the outcomes of the U.S.-Russia talks, the United States pledged to help restore Russia’s access to the global market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, reduce maritime insurance costs, and improve access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.

    In the U.S.-Ukraine talks, both sides reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to facilitating the exchange of prisoners of war, securing the release of civilian detainees, and ensuring the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children.

    Meanwhile, the Kremlin stated on Tuesday that Russia and the United States had agreed to ensure the implementation of the Black Sea Initiative, contingent on the easing of sanctions on Russia’s agricultural and food trade.

    Russia also stipulated the removal of restrictions on its food and fertilizer producers and exporters, the servicing of related Russian-flagged vessels in ports, and the supply of agricultural machinery to Russia, according to the Kremlin.

    It further announced that a “temporary moratorium” on strikes against energy facilities — including nuclear power plants, oil refineries, gas pipelines, and hydroelectric dams — would be in effect for 30 days starting March 18 and “may be extended by mutual agreement.”

    Previously, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed on March 18 to halt attacks on energy facilities in a phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump.

    As for Kiev, while Umerov stated on Tuesday that “all parties” had agreed on the need to prohibit attacks on energy infrastructure in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, he also warned that any movement of Russian military vessels beyond the eastern part of the Black Sea would “violate the agreement’s spirit” and be considered a “threat to Ukraine’s national security.” In response, Ukraine would exercise its right to self-defense, he cautioned.

    Mixed sentiments

    Commenting on the three-day peace negotiations, Trump said the U.S. side was “in deep discussions with Russia and Ukraine,” which were “going well.”

    He added that he would look into Russia’s requests for sanctions relief.

    However, the mood is quite different for both Russia and Ukraine. Although the meetings in Saudi Arabia hinted at the possibility of a broader ceasefire, the two countries remain wary of the latest deal, voicing contrasting concerns over its implementation.

    In an interview with local media, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow needs “clear guarantees” from the White House regarding the agreement on the safety of shipping in the Black Sea.

    “Given the sad experience of agreements with just Kiev, the guarantees can only be the result of an order from Washington to (Ukrainian President Volodymyr) Zelensky and his team,” Lavrov said.

    Zelensky accused the Kremlin of “lying” and “manipulating” by saying the Black Sea ceasefire depends on “sanctions,” warning that the Russians “must understand that if they launch strikes, there will be a strong response.”

    At a press conference earlier Tuesday, Zelensky criticized Washington’s decision to help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural goods, dismissing it as “a weakening of the position and a weakening of sanctions.”

    The Ukrainian president said he hopes to gain clarity from an upcoming summit in Paris regarding which countries would deploy forces to enforce the peace agreements.

    “Our task is to come out with the result of understanding who we have and who is ready” to contribute forces to implement measures to halt the conflict, Zelensky said.

    In the meantime, Europe, once again finding itself sidelined in addressing the conflict, has been actively organizing support for Ukraine in recent weeks.

    French President Emmanuel Macron announced that leaders of the so-called “coalition of the willing” will meet again this week, focusing on short-term military support for Ukrainian forces and exploring long-term “security guarantees” to help sustain Ukraine’s defense. Macron’s remarks have been dismissed by the United States as “a posture and a pose.”

    The meeting in Paris with Zelensky will be the latest in a series of high-stakes gatherings among European leaders, following London’s hosting of discussions on Thursday among European military chiefs from the coalition backing Ukraine.

    Britain and France are taking a leading role in organizing Western support for Ukraine after Trump surprised Europe by initiating talks with Putin. The two European powers have pledged to help provide the military force needed to keep Russia “at bay” if a ceasefire is reached.

    Uncertain future

    Notably, the battlefield showed no signs of quieting despite the peace talks in Saudi Arabia, with both Russia and Ukraine reporting fresh waves of drone strikes and accusing each other of escalation.

    On Tuesday, the Russian Defense Ministry said Ukraine had “continued to deliberately strike Russian peaceful energy infrastructure facilities using UAVs.”

    “By continuing daily attacks on Russian energy infrastructure, Zelensky confirms his inability to negotiate and his lack of control by external guarantors responsible for ensuring compliance with any possible agreements,” the ministry said.

    In Ukraine, the number of people injured on Monday in a Russian missile strike on the northeastern city of Sumy rose to 101, including 23 children, according to the Sumy regional administration.

    Preliminary data indicated that a Russian missile struck a residential area of the city, damaging several apartment buildings and an educational institution, the Sumy Regional Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement.

    Experts have pointed out that a real, permanent peace settlement could be far off, citing deep-rooted divisions and a growing trust deficit among the stakeholders.

    Khalid Almatrafi, Bureau Chief of Asharq TV in Saudi Arabia, told Xinhua that “the escalating mutual attacks … reflect the deepening gap between the two sides and complicate any negotiating process.”

    The repeated accusations deepen mistrust and make it difficult to establish any “confidence-building measures,” which are essential for transitioning from a ceasefire to a sustainable political settlement, said Almatrafi.

    Echoing Almatrafi’s viewpoint, Abdulaziz Alshaabani, a Saudi researcher at Al Riyadh Center for Political and Strategic Studies, said that “a lack of trust” poses a major threat to reaching an agreement, “given the history of violations of agreements between the two sides.”

    “In 2022, several rounds of negotiations took place … in the end, nothing came of it,” said Andrey Kortunov, a scholar with the Valdai Discussion Club in Russia. “Over the past three years, there has been a major escalation, and the situation has changed,” making it “difficult for both sides to find compromises,” Kortunov said.

    “Given the difficulty in enforcing a halt to strikes on energy infrastructure agreed upon last week, it remains to be seen how effective the latest deal will be,” The Independent, a British online newspaper, reported.

    The newspaper also questioned Washington’s motives in assuming the mediator’s role, particularly concerning Ukraine’s mineral and energy resources.

    “The Trump administration has claimed that Washington’s stake in Ukraine’s minerals and energy resources could deter Russia from launching future attacks,” but such a diplomatic push would, in fact, grant Washington “a vast stake in Ukraine’s rare earth mineral deposits,” it said.

    “Ukraine’s gas infrastructure could also be of interest to the White House, with Kiev owning the world’s third-largest underground gas storage capacity,” it noted. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hawley Exposes Big Tech as Willing Collaborators in Censorship: ‘They Own It’

    US Senate News:

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

    Tuesday, March 25, 2025

    Today in a hearing of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) exposed how Big Tech uses its market power to squelch competition, suppress conservative voices, and even sway voters and control elections, such as when they buried the infamous Hunter Biden laptop story just days before the 2020 presidential election. 
    “It was their decision. They own it. And truthfully Facebook and others had a pattern of censoring long before this,” Hawley said, referring to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s claim that the company was pressured into censorship by the Biden Administration. “They have been avid participants in this censorship campaign.”
    [embedded content]
    “Companies like Facebook, Meta have enormous structural power that Mark Zuckerberg has spent [. . .] billions of dollars amassing. He has worked to destroy competitors who might break that power up or challenge that power in any way. He has used that power to stifle competition. He’s using it to stifle views he doesn’t like,” Senator Hawley continued. “This is a textbook example of what happens when a monopoly that has a political agenda [. . .] uses that monopoly in order to try to control other competitors and also to try to control the information that flows to the American people.” 
    Senator Hawley concluded that until these companies are stripped of their power, nothing will change. 
    Senator Hawley has been vocal about holding Big Tech accountable. Earlier this month, he held a hearing to highlight Big Tech’s role in facilitating child exploitation on their platforms. He has also advocated for those victimized by Big Tech and harmful AI, including having their voice and images used without their consent. 
    Watch the full exchange here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia stands firm behind its foreign aid in the budget, but the future remains precarious

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Conley Tyler, Honorary Fellow, Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne

    This week’s budget will come as a relief to Australia’s neighbours in the Indo-Pacific that rely on development assistance. The Albanese government did not follow the lead of US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in cutting its foreign aid.

    The Trump administration froze foreign assistance and dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID) when it came into office. Meanwhile, the UK announced 40% aid cuts of its own.

    It is to Australia’s credit this has not happened here. Australia’s development budget remains intact this year and in forward estimates.

    Sensible policymakers seem to recognise that Australia’s strategic circumstances are different. As a nation surrounded by low- and middle-income countries, Australia cannot vacate the field on development issues without enormous reputational, diplomatic and strategic damage.

    This budget shows Australia is committed to its region – with 75% of the foreign assistance budget flowing to the Indo-Pacific – and sees development partnerships as a way to solve shared problems.

    What’s in the budget for aid and development

    The details of the development budget show Australia has been listening to its partners to identify critical gaps and reprioritise funds.

    In the Pacific, funding has risen to a historic high, with no country receiving less aid. There have been changes in focus to respond to the US funding cuts, including programs on HIV/AIDS in Papua New Guinea and Fiji and gender-based violence in the Pacific.

    This fits with Australia’s desire to be a partner of choice – and to prevent an increased Chinese presence in the region.

    In Southeast Asia, Australia has increased its aid to all countries and has shifted funding, particularly in health where the US was a major donor.

    This is in Australia’s interest. A new program on Indonesian human and animal health, for example, will help prevent health system failures in areas such as tuberculosis and polio elimination on Australia’s doorstep.

    Funds have also been reallocated to support civil society organisations working in vital areas like media freedom and human rights, which would have been a casualty in the US cuts.

    There was also a shift in humanitarian funding to Myanmar and Bangladesh, where the US aid withdrawal has left Rohingya refugees in a desperate state.

    Importantly, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is helping local organisations survive US cuts by allowing temporary flexibility in the use of grant funding to help them continue to deliver essential services.

    Beyond these reprioritisations, the other heartening thing about the budget is its normality.

    It maintains funding for assistive technology for people with disabilities and an Inclusion and Equality Fund to support LGBTQIA+ civil society organisations and human rights defenders. There are programs on maternal health, including reproductive rights.

    The future is still precarious

    However, it would be wrong to think this budget will fill the gaps left by the US withdrawal.

    The ANU Development Policy Centre estimates that traditional OECD donors will cut at least 25% of their aid by 2027. It said, “when that much of a thing goes missing, it’s clearly at risk of collapse”.

    Some development organisations will close their doors, potentially including household names that Australians have donated to for years. This is a time of huge transformation for the sector.

    Another future problem will be maintaining multilateral institutions that rely on US funding – including the World Health Organization, World Food Programme, World Bank and Asian Development Bank. This will require a concerted effort with other countries.

    So, while the Australian budget shows a government deploying current funding as intelligently as possible, there will eventually be limits to this approach.

    In the “new world of uncertainty” described in the treasurer’s budget speech, it simply won’t be possible to meet Australia’s strategic aims and keep development spending at its current rate. It is still far away from 1% of the federal budget.

    At some point, Australia must rethink the trajectory of its international commitments.

    Analysis by the Development Intelligence Lab, a think tank working on development cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, has shown that over the last 25 years, the international parts of the federal budget – defence, intelligence, diplomacy and development – have held steady at around 10%.

    In a time of disruption, this might need to change. In 1949, for example, Australia invested almost 9% of the federal budget on development and diplomacy alone – not including defence.

    Those in the foreign aid sector can celebrate Australia has not pulled back on its commitments like the US and UK. At the same time, we should expect the next government will inevitably be called on to do more.

    Melissa Conley Tyler is Executive Director at the Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy & Defence Dialogue (AP4D), an initiative funded by the foreign affairs and defence portfolios and hosted by the Australian Council for International Development..

    – ref. Australia stands firm behind its foreign aid in the budget, but the future remains precarious – https://theconversation.com/australia-stands-firm-behind-its-foreign-aid-in-the-budget-but-the-future-remains-precarious-253028

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Leak of US military plans on Signal is a classic case of ‘shadow IT’. It shows why security systems need to be easy to use

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Murray, Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

    Yesterday, The Atlantic magazine revealed an extraordinary national security blunder in the United States. Top US government officials had discussed plans for a bombing campaign in Yemen against Houthi rebels in a Signal group chat which inadvertently included The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.

    This is hardly the first time senior US government officials have used non-approved systems to handle classified information. In 2009, the then US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fatefully decided to accept the risk of storing her emails on a server in her basement because she preferred the convenience of accessing them using her personal BlackBerry.

    Much has been written about the unprecedented nature of this latest incident. Reporting has suggested the US officials involved may have also violated federal laws that require any communication, including text messages, about official acts to be properly preserved.

    But what can we learn from it to help us better understand how to design secure systems?

    A classic case of ‘shadow IT’

    Signal is regarded by many cybersecurity experts as one of the world’s most secure messaging apps. It has become an established part of many workplaces, including government.

    Even so, it should never be used to store and send classified information. Governments, including in the US, define strict rules for how national security classified information needs to be handled and secured. These rules prohibit the use of non-approved systems, including commercial messaging apps such as Signal plus cloud services such as Dropbox or OneDrive, for sending and storing classified data.

    The sharing of military plans on Signal is a classic case of what IT professionals call “shadow IT”.

    It refers to the all-too-common practice of employees setting up parallel IT infrastructure for business purposes without the approval of central IT administrators.

    This incident highlights the potential for shadow IT to create security risks.

    Government agencies and large organisations employ teams of cybersecurity professionals whose job it is to manage and secure the organisation’s IT infrastructure from cyber threats. At a minimum, these teams need to track what systems are being used to store sensitive information. Defending against sophisticated threats requires constant monitoring of IT systems.

    In this sense, shadow IT creates security blind spots: systems that adversaries can breach while going undetected, not least because the IT security team doesn’t even know these systems exist.

    It’s possible that part of the motivation for the US officials in question using shadow IT systems in this instance might have been avoiding the scrutiny and record-keeping requirements of the official channels. For example, some of the messages in the Signal group chat were set to disappear after one week, and some after four.

    However, we have known for at least a decade that employees also build shadow IT systems not because they are trying to weaken their organisation’s cybersecurity. Instead, a common motivation is that by using shadow IT systems many employees can get their work done faster than when using official, approved systems.

    Usability is key

    The latest incident highlights an important but often overlooked lesson in cybersecurity: whether a security system is easy to use has an outsized impact on the degree to which it helps improve security.

    To borrow from US Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, we might say that a system designer who prioritises security at the expense of usability will produce a system that is neither usable nor secure.

    The belief that to make a system more secure requires making it harder to use is as widespread as it is wrong. The best systems are the ones that are both highly secure and highly usable.

    The reason is simple: a system that is secure yet difficult to use securely will invariably be used insecurely, if at all. Anyone whose inbox auto-complete has caused them to send an email to the wrong person will understand this risk. It likely also explains how The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief might have been mistakenly added by US officials to the Signal group chat.

    While we cannot know for certain, reporting suggests Signal displayed the name of Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat group only as “JG”. Signal doesn’t make it easy to confirm the identity of someone in a group chat, except by their phone number or contact name.

    In this sense, Signal gives relatively few clues about the identities of people in chats. This makes it relatively easy to inadvertently add the wrong “JG” from one’s contact list to a group chat.

    Signal is one of the most secure messaging apps, but should never be used to store and send classified information.
    Ink Drop/Shutterstock

    A highly secure – and highly usable – system

    Fortunately, we can have our cake and eat it too. My own research shows how.

    In collaboration with Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Group, I helped develop what’s known as the Cross Domain Desktop Compositor. This device allows secure access to classified information while being easier to use than traditional solutions.

    It is easier to use because it allows users to connect to the internet. At the same time, it keeps sensitive data physically separate – and therefore secure – but allows it to be displayed alongside internet applications such as web browsers.

    One key to making this work was employing mathematical reasoning to prove the device’s software provided rock-solid security guarantees. This allowed us to marry the flexibility of software with the strong hardware-enforced security, without introducing additional vulnerability.

    Where to from here?

    Avoiding security incidents such as this one requires people following the rules to keep everyone secure. This is especially true when handling classified information, even if doing so requires more work than setting up shadow IT workarounds.

    In the meantime, we can avoid the need for people to work around the rules by focusing more research on how to make systems both secure and usable.

    Toby Murray receives funding from the Department of Defence. He is Director of the Defence Science Institute, which is funded by the Victorian, Tasmanian and Commonwealth Governments. He previously worked for the Department of Defence.

    – ref. Leak of US military plans on Signal is a classic case of ‘shadow IT’. It shows why security systems need to be easy to use – https://theconversation.com/leak-of-us-military-plans-on-signal-is-a-classic-case-of-shadow-it-it-shows-why-security-systems-need-to-be-easy-to-use-253036

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What makes a good search engine? These 4 models can help you use search in the age of AI

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Coghlan, Senior Lecturer in Digital Ethics, Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

    beast01/Shutterstock

    Every day, users ask search engines millions of questions. The information we receive can shape our opinions and behaviour.

    We are often not aware of their influence, but internet search tools sort and rank web content when responding to our queries. This can certainly help us learn more things. But search tools can also return low-quality information and even misinformation.

    Recently, large language models (LLMs) have entered the search scene. While LLMs are not search engines, commercial web search engines have started to include LLM-based artificial intelligence (AI) features into their products. Microsoft’s Copilot and Google’s Overviews are examples of this trend.

    AI-enhanced search is marketed as convenient. But, together with other changes in the nature of search over the last decades, it raises the question: what is a good search engine?

    Our new paper, published in AI and Ethics, explores this. To make the possibilities clearer, we imagine four search tool models: Customer Servant, Librarian, Journalist and Teacher. These models reflect design elements in search tools and are loosely based on matching human roles.

    The four models of search tools

    Customer Servant

    Workers in customer service give people the things they request. If someone asks for a “burger and fries”, they don’t query whether the request is good for the person, or whether they might really be after something else.

    The search model we call Customer Servant is somewhat like the first computer-aided information retrieval systems introduced in the 1950s. These returned sets of unranked documents matching a Boolean query – using simple logical rules to define relationships between keywords (e.g. “cats NOT dogs”).

    Librarian

    As the name suggests, this model somewhat resembles human librarians. Librarian also provides content that people request, but it doesn’t always take queries at face value.

    Instead, it aims for “relevance” by inferring user intentions from contextual information such as location, time or the history of user interactions. Classic web search engines of the late 1990s and early 2000s that rank results and provide a list of resources – think early Google – sit in this category.

    Librarians don’t just retrieve information, they strive for relevance.
    Tyler Olson/Shutterstock

    Journalist

    Journalists go beyond librarians. While often responding to what people want to know, journalists carefully curate that information, at times weeding out falsehoods and canvassing various public viewpoints.

    Journalists aim to make people better informed. The Journalist search model does something similar. It may customise the presentation of results by providing additional information, or by diversifying search results to give a more balanced list of viewpoints or perspectives.

    Teacher

    Human teachers, like journalists, aim at giving accurate information. However, they may exercise even more control: teachers may strenuously debunk erroneous information, while pointing learners to the very best expert sources, including lesser-known ones. They may even refuse to expand on claims they deem false or superficial.

    LLM-based conversational search systems such as Copilot or Gemini may play a roughly similar role. By providing a synthesised response to a prompt, they exercise more control over presented information than classic web search engines.

    They may also try to explicitly discredit problematic views on topics such as health, politics, the environment or history. They might reply with “I can’t promote misinformation” or “This topic requires nuance”. Some LLMs convey a strong “opinion” on what is genuine knowledge and what is unedifying.

    No search model is best

    We argue each search tool model has strengths and drawbacks.

    The Customer Servant is highly explainable: every result can be directly tied to keywords in your query. But this precision also limits the system, as it can’t grasp broader or deeper information needs beyond the exact terms used.

    The Librarian model uses additional signals like data about clicks to return content more aligned with what users are really looking for. The catch is these systems may introduce bias. Even with the best intentions, choices about relevance and data sources can reflect underlying value judgements.

    The Journalist model shifts the focus toward helping users understand topics, from science to world events, more fully. It aims to present factual information and various perspectives in balanced ways.

    This approach is especially useful in moments of crisis – like a global pandemic – where countering misinformation is critical. But there’s a trade-off: tweaking search results for social good raises concerns about user autonomy. It may feel paternalistic, and could open the door to broader content interventions.

    The Teacher model is even more interventionist. It guides users towards what it “judges” to be good information, while criticising or discouraging access to content it deems harmful or false. This can promote learning and critical thinking.

    But filtering or downranking content can also limit choice, and raises red flags if the “teacher” – whether algorithm or AI – is biased or simply wrong. Current language models often have built-in “guardrails” to align with human values, but these are imperfect. LLMs can also hallucinate plausible-sounding nonsense, or avoid offering perspectives we might actually want to hear.

    Staying vigilant is key

    We might prefer different models for different purposes. For example, since teacher-like LLMs synthesise and analyse vast amounts of web material, we may sometimes want their more opinionated perspective on a topic, such as on good books, world events or nutrition.

    Yet sometimes we may wish to explore specific and verifiable sources about a topic for ourselves. We may also prefer search tools to downrank some content – conspiracy theories, for example.

    LLMs make mistakes and can mislead with confidence. As these models become more central to search, we need to stay aware of their drawbacks, and demand transparency and accountability from tech companies on how information is delivered.

    Striking the right balance with search engine design and selection is no easy task. Too much control risks eroding individual choice and autonomy, while too little could leave harms unchecked.

    Our four ethical models offer a starting point for robust discussion. Further interdisciplinary research is crucial to define when and how search engines can be used ethically and responsibly.

    Damiano Spina has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).

    Falk Scholer has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).

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

    – ref. What makes a good search engine? These 4 models can help you use search in the age of AI – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-good-search-engine-these-4-models-can-help-you-use-search-in-the-age-of-ai-252927

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI China: More Cambodians enthusiastic about learning Chinese

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

    Students learn Chinese language at the Confucius Institute of the Royal Academy of Cambodia in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, March 24, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    Cambodian civil servant Long Meikim was all ears and took good notes when a Chinese teacher taught Chinese on Monday at the Confucius Institute of the Royal Academy of Cambodia.

    The 24-year-old employee at a state ministry in Phnom Penh said she was eager to master Chinese proficiency, as it would be helpful in her job and make it easy for her to communicate with Chinese people.

    Meikim is among hundreds of Cambodian students taking Chinese classes at the Confucius Institute of the Royal Academy of Cambodia. After learning Chinese for four months, she can now communicate in simple situations and understand some basic vocabulary and grammar.

    “The Chinese language has helped me a lot in my current job. Moreover, nowadays, many Chinese people have come to Cambodia,” she told Xinhua.

    Meikim said she really likes the Chinese language and culture, saying that learning Chinese would give her the possibility to gain insights into ancient and diverse cultures.

    “For China, I have never been there, but I’m impressed with its modern cities with skyscrapers and beautiful scenery,” she said. “The field that impressed me the most is technology. Technology in China is advanced.”

    Sharing her view on the current Cambodia-China ties, Meikim said cooperation in various sectors and cultural exchange has made the two countries’ relations get closer, as their “ironclad” friendship has been further strengthened.

    “I’m pleased to see excellent relations between Cambodia and China,” she said. “I hope China will increase its investment in Cambodia in order to help further boost Cambodia’s economic growth, and Chinese education will be further expanded.”

    Meikim said she has dreamed of studying in China since she was in high school, and she hopes that her dream will come true one day.

    Rorn Chanara, a 20-year-old learner of Chinese literature at the Confucius Institute of the Royal Academy of Cambodia, said the influx of Chinese investors, businesspeople, and tourists had motivated him to study Chinese.

    “I think the Chinese language is good and will be useful for me in the future, helping me communicate well with Chinese people and get a proper job with a high income,” he told Xinhua.

    As there are many reputable Chinese enterprises operating in the Southeast Asian country, Chanara hopes that he will become an interpreter for those companies in the future when he masters Chinese proficiency.

    “The Confucius Institute has greatly contributed to promoting good relations between Cambodian and Chinese people and providing Chinese education to students, allowing them to learn both Chinese literature and culture,” he said.

    Chanara praises China for its advanced technology, high development and good education system, saying he is also keen to study in China if possible.

    Niu Li, Chinese director of the Confucius Institute of the Royal Academy of Cambodia, said jointly founded by Jiujiang University in East China’s Jiangxi Province and the Royal Academy of Cambodia on Dec. 22, 2009, the institute has gradually developed into one of the largest and most influential Chinese education and cultural exchange institutions in Cambodia.

    “As the first Confucius Institute in Cambodia, the institute has always committed to promoting Chinese teaching, spreading Chinese culture and promoting cultural exchanges between China and Cambodia,” he told Xinhua.

    In the process of development in more than 10 years, it has continuously improved its teaching network, Niu said, adding that it has now covered several provinces and cities in Cambodia, with Confucius classrooms, Chinese language centers and university Chinese departments in Phnom Penh, Siem Reap, and Sihanoukville among others.

    “Our goal is to provide high-quality Chinese education to government officials, military personnel and learners from all walks of life,” he said. “The total number of registered students exceeds 130,000, and the number of people studying Chinese at the institute each year exceeds 8,000.”

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Cuddles for crims out, rights for victims in

    Source: ACT Party

    Welcoming the third-reading passage of sentencing reforms today, ACT Justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson says:

    “Cuddling criminals didn’t work, so ACT campaigned on restoring consequences for crime, and rights for victims. Now, that’s written into law,” says Mr Stephenson.

    “The reforms passed today deliver on ACT coalition commitments to create new aggravating factors for crimes against people working sole charge, or in a business attached to the family home.

    “We also committed to giving greater weight to the needs of victims and communities over offenders. That’s come to pass with the principles of sentencing amended to include requirement to take into account information provided to the court about victims’ interests.

    “Protecting the safety and property of New Zealanders is the government’s first and most important job. That’s why ACT is restoring balance to a system that has become too focused on criminals instead of victims.”

    On retail crime:

    “People working alone feel especially vulnerable, as do those who work in a business attached to the family home, because they can’t flee without putting loved ones at risk,” says ACT Ethnic Communities spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar.

    “I’ve met with shop workers and retailers in Auckland, who have taken costly security measures just so they feel safe as they provide for their families. It is heartbreaking because many people come to New Zealand and take these jobs with the understanding that this is a safe country.

    “Now, these workers’ vulnerability is recognised in law. It is a great example of how ACT celebrates the contribution of peaceful and productive communities.”

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: PSNA calls on NZ govt to condemn renewed Israel air strikes on Gaza – 320 killed

    Asia Pacific Report

    A national Palestinian advocacy group has called on the Aotearoa New Zealand government to immediately condemn Israel for its resumption today of “genocidal attacks” on the almost 2 million Palestinians trapped in the besieged Gaza enclave.

    Media reports said that more than 320 people had been killed — many of them children — in a wave of predawn attacks by Israel to break the fragile ceasefire that had been holding since mid-January.

    The renewed war on Gaza comes amid a worsening humanitarian crisis that has persisted for 16 days since March 1.

    This followed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to block the entry of all aid and goods, cut water and electricity, and shut down the Strip’s border crossings at the end of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement.

    “Immediate condemnation of Israel’s resumption of attacks on Gaza must come from the New Zealand government”, said co-national chair John Minto of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) in a statement.

    “Israel has breached the January ceasefire agreement multiple times and is today relaunching its genocidal attacks against the Palestinian people of Gaza.”

    Israeli violations
    He said that in the last few weeks Israel had:

    • refused to negotiate the second stage of the ceasefire agreement with Hamas which would see a permanent ceasefire and complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza;
    • Issued a complete ban on food, water, fuel and medical supplies entering Gaza — “a war crime of epic proportions”; and
    • Cut off the electricity supply desperately needed to, for example, operate desalination plants for water supplies.

    ‘Cowardly silence’
    “The New Zealand government response has been a cowardly silence when the people of New Zealand have been calling for sanctions against Israel for its genocide,” Minto said.

    “The government is out of touch with New Zealanders but in touch with US/Israel.

    “Foreign Minister Winston Peters seems to be explaining his silence as ‘keeping his nerve’.

    Minto said that for the past 17 months, minister Peters had condemned every act of Palestinian resistance against 77 years of brutal colonisation and apartheid policies.

    “But he has refused to condemn any of the countless war crimes committed by Israel during this time — including the deliberate use of starvation as a weapon of war.

    “Speaking out to condemn Israel now is our opportunity to force it to reconsider and begin negotiations on stage two of the ceasefire agreement Israel is trying to walk away from.

    “Palestinians and New Zealanders deserve no less.”

    A Netanyahu “Wanted” sign at last Saturday’s pro-Palestinian rally in “Palestinian Corner”, Auckland . . . in reference to the International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued last November against the Israeli Prime Minister and former defence minister Yoav Gallant. Image: APR

    ‘Devastating sounds’
    Al Jazeera reporter Maram Humaid said from Gaza: “We woke up to the devastating sounds of multiple explosions as a series of air attacks targeted various areas across the Gaza Strip, from north to south, including Jabalia, Gaza City, Nuseirat, Deir el-Balah and Khan Younis.”

    Protesters picket outside the US Consulate in Auckland today in protest against Israel resuming air strikes on the besieged Gaza enclave. Image: Kathy Ross/APR

    “The strikes hit homes, residential buildings, schools sheltering displaced people and tents, resulting in a significant number of casualties, including women and children, especially since the attacks occurred during sleeping hours.

    The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza said at least 232 people had been killed in today’s Israeli raids.

    The Palestinian resistance group Hamas called on people of Arab and Islamic nations — and the “free people of the world” — to take to the streets in protest over the devastating attack.

    Hamas urged people across the world to “raise their voice in rejection of the resumption of the Zionist war of extermination against our people in the Gaza Strip”.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Shareholder activism: reflections on the current, and future, landscape

    Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)

    Campaigns keep evolving, with more high stakes ahead 11 min read

    Last year was another big one for shareholder activists globally, with investor sentiment in 2024 taking its cues from disruption across the broader economic and geopolitical landscape. Closer to home, activity was more stable in Australia—as it typically is, owing to our smaller footprint, more stringent company laws and stable markets—but campaigns continue to evolve, with activists refining their strategies to both capitalise on financial opportunities and seek redress for governance concerns.

    We expect high stakes for the rest of the year as the Trump administration’s policies upend commercial and regulatory settings and potentially tip the scales in favour of activists. While shareholder activism is now a standard part of the investment landscape in the US, the practice is reverberating around Australia and the rest of the world.

    In this Insight, we bring together the key takeaways from 2024 and provide our thoughts on what we see ahead.

    A snapshot of the numbers

    Activist activity has well and truly bounced back from the subdued levels brought about by the pandemic.

    Over 1000 companies were targeted by activist campaigns worldwide for the second consecutive year.1 The US continues to be the epicentre of activity, with nearly 600 US-listed companies facing activist demands, marking a 7% increase from 2023 and 16% from 2022. There was a strong showing from non-traditional and first-time activists—a record-breaking 160 different investors launched campaigns in the US in 2024, which included 45 first-time activists, also a record.

    Activity in Asia was similarly strong (particularly in Japan and South Korea), though Europe trended down, owing to ongoing disruption brought about by the conflict in Ukraine and generally subdued economic activity. There, the United Kingdom hosts the lion’s share of activity, with 42% of campaigns targeting British companies.

    Australia saw a modest rise in activity year on year, with 56 companies targeted, up nominally from the 54 campaigns recorded in 2023. While the volume of campaigns remained steady, the effectiveness of Australian activists improved—activists were assessed as having achieved their objectives in 25% of resolved campaigns, up from 16% in 2023.

    Despite this, Australian activists struggled to secure board representation in target companies, with only seven board seats gained in 2024, down significantly from 26 in 2023. This divergence suggests that although activism remains a powerful force for corporate engagement, the dominant institutional investors and influential proxy advisors remain selective and largely hesitant in delivering changes at the board level.

    All up, campaign volumes continue to be strong, though success is trickier to measure. Whether the public demands of activists are met is one tangible way of assessing effectiveness, but the overall impact of a campaign can often manifest in less direct ways. For example, the opportunity cost of management in responding to a campaign, the inherent value derived from the ensuing publicity and any derivative or other trading in the target securities—and, of course, the concessions that play out behind closed doors—often contribute to the effectiveness of shareholder activism.

    Stories from the front line

    These are some of the headline-grabbing campaigns that played out in the last year or so that have set the tone for activist causes.

    One of the most closely watched activist campaigns was Glenview Capital’s attempt to gain board representation at CVS Health. Glenview increased its stake in CVS in the third quarter of 2024 by 31%, making its US$635 million holding (equivalent to 1% of the stock) the largest of all three activist hedge funds with an interest in the company. The intervention came following a 27% drop in share price since the beginning of 2024, a market reaction reportedly attributed to higher medical costs in CVS’s insurance segment caused by an influx of medical procedures delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Glenview secured four board seats in November 2024, including Glenview CEO Larry Robbins. It was reported that the board appointments were made amid the prospect of Glenview initiating a public and more aggressive proxy fight. This case highlights the increasing sophistication of activist investors targeting high-profile global companies, and underscores the importance of clear, proactive shareholder engagement strategies—a strategy that Australian boards should observe as activism intensifies.

    The activist campaign led by Elliott Investment Management resulted in a change of CEO at Starbucks and a correspondent increase in share value by 24%, equating to US$26 billion in value and marking the company’s most successful day since its initial public offering in 1992.

    In July 2024, it was reported that Elliott had become one of the largest investors in Starbucks, and sought to leverage its position by presenting a proposal to the board for an overhaul of domestic and international strategy. The move followed the stock price having declined by 24% since the former CEO, Laxman Narasimhan, was appointed in March 2023. While Elliott approached the board in private and did not publicly advocate for a replacement CEO, there were persistent leaks to the media, which commentators assessed as likely prompting the decision. On 13 August 2024, the board announced the appointment of Brian Niccol, former CEO of restaurant chain Chipotle, who is credited with Chipotle’s modernisation and an increase in its stock price by 770% since 2018.

    The campaign illustrates that one response strategy in dealing with activists, particularly high-profile investors, can be to move pre-emptively to instigate change before the issues are forced.

    In June 2024, Elliott also disclosed an 11% economic stake in Southwest Airlines worth US$1.9 billion, and converted enough of its derivate holdings in September to amass a 10% common stock holding that enabled Elliott to call a special meeting. Conversely to its approach for Starbucks, it engaged in a more public campaign, by proposing that ‘enhancing the board, upgrading leadership and a comprehensive business review’ were necessary to increase Southwest’s stock price. In October 2024, it was announced that Southwest would appoint five independent directors nominated by Elliott in addition to another board member, and that the former chief executive and then chairman would accelerate his retirement. Following the announcement of the personnel changes, Elliott withdrew its demand for a special shareholder meeting intended to replace 10 members of Southwest’s 15-person board. Elliott’s influence has continued to grow since then, with Southwest disclosing on 19 February 2025 that the company’s agreement with Elliott has been amended to increase the maximum aggregate economic exposure that Elliott may acquire, from 14.9% to 19.9%, but limit it from acquiring more than 12.49% of outstanding common stock until 1 April 2026. When Elliott disclosed its position in June 2024, the Southwest stock price was US$29.70, and as at 14 March 2025, it was US$31.73.

    Consistent with the sentiments of the Trump administration’s focus on rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, a group of Apple shareholders submitted on 25 February 2025 a proposal titled ‘Request to Cease DEI Efforts’. This was rejected at Apple’s shareholder meeting in February 2025, with 97.67% of the vote being against the proposal. The campaign against Apple is one of several anti-DEI proposals that have been levied against prominent companies, including Costco, where the proposal was defeated by 98% of votes, and farm equipment maker John Deere, where the proposal was defeated by 98.7%. These proposals have attracted significant attention, by harnessing viral social media campaigns advocating for customer boycotts, inundating company social media accounts with negative comments, and lobbing the threat of lawsuits alleging that DEI initiatives constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. Despite the spotlight (or perhaps because of it?), shareholders of the world’s most valuable listed company voted overwhelmingly not to abandon its DEI initiatives.

    Activist themes

    We see two broad themes that motivate activists at the moment. For the reasons set out in the next section, we think the global economic and geopolitical settings provide an opportunity to shape activist behaviours.

    First, there is the more traditional activist strategy where professional investors identify companies that they perceive could optimise their performance or enhance their governance structures, and then seek to exert influence to encourage the company to focus on increasing shareholder returns. They do this by pushing for one or a combination of:

    Second, there is the rising influence of public sentiment and political undercurrents playing out in the theatre of public markets, and the volatility that comes with it. Activist campaigns are increasingly becoming a proxy for broader societal dissatisfaction.

    In Australia, this dual-track activism—balancing financial imperatives with political and social influences—reinforces the heightened investor expectations for action and accountability for these issues at the board level.

    For instance, shareholder dissent on pay has markedly increased in Australia recently, seeing over 40 strikes among ASX 300 companies in 2023 and 2024, compared with 22–26 strikes recorded between 2018 and 2022.2 Among those receiving a strike was the Australian Securities Exchange itself, with 26.15% of votes against the adoption of the remuneration report. Commentators assessed that the vote was an expression of shareholder dissatisfaction with the $250 million write-down and anticipated cost of a further $300 million to replace the CHESS technology system. Although 13 companies in the ASX 300 received a second strike in 2024, not a single board spill proposal came close to succeeding, with none receiving more than 20% of votes in favour.3 This demonstrates that while strikes are increasing, this is not being accompanied by momentum to trigger broader change to leadership structures—it would appear that shareholders are looking to use their vote to send a shot across the bow as an appropriate warning, rather than achieve a fundamental governance reset.

    Shareholders and special interest groups have also used the proxy forum to express dissatisfaction regarding climate action, reflecting broader societal concerns around environmental sustainability and climate change. Last year, Market Forces led an activist campaign against Woodside Energy, advocating for an overhaul to its climate transition action plan and encouraging other shareholders to push for further board renewal at the 2025 AGM. At the AGM in April 2024, 58.4% of proxies cast were against the transition strategy, following three hours of questions. Earlier this month, another activist shareholder group, the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, advised investors to vote against the re-election of all three directors standing at the 2025 AGM and continues to integrate climate concerns into its analysis of shareholder returns.

    There is a similar experience in the UK, where Shell shareholders are still asked to vote on resolutions brought by activists to align the company’s medium-term emissions reduction targets with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and to factor ‘Scope 3’ emissions from fuels burnt by consumers into such calculations. Although the resolution received just 18.6% support from shareholders in 2024 (down 1.4% from 2023), the sustained pressure and media exposure may have contributed to the environmental, social and governance (ESG) proposals instead advanced by Shell’s board.

    For a more detailed analysis of the specific tactics that activists deploy pursuing these issues and how companies can prepare, see our earlier Insight.

    Our expectations for the road ahead

    Economic and geopolitical disruption to fuel activity

    The global economy is currently experiencing disruption. The focal point is, of course, the US, where the combination of (promised) tax cuts and deregulation will free up capital for investors to pursue short-term opportunities. As the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Chair, John Lonsdale, remarked in his recent address at the Australian Financial Review Banking Summit, ‘what happens in the world’s biggest economy has implications for the world, and therefore for Australia’. We thus expect the positive conditions for activists will spill across borders, and perhaps the momentum will too—the Australian Securities and Investments Commission recently outlined its first steps towards easing compliance obligations for directors.

    The hoped-for spike in M&A activity creates the opportunity for shareholder activism, so we anticipate elevated volumes of activity in the near term. At the same time, the imposition of tariffs and other protectionist policies—and the market volatility and trade war they may set off—will create winners and losers, with companies that struggle in the turbulence becoming targets for activists.

    A reckoning on ESG and DEI initiatives

    There has been mounting pushback on ESG and, more recently, DEI policies of corporations, with activists querying their necessity and appropriateness. Critics, who may not be shareholders, will be even more emboldened by the priorities and tone of the Trump administration.

    We expect that activists will continue to seek out opportunities to make high-profile examples of some companies. However, while proponents of these initiatives have attracted significant attention, we haven’t yet seen this noise translate into strong shareholder support for campaigns, as the recent experience with Apple demonstrates.

    The anti-anti-ESG and DEI cause

    While some activists are seeking to challenge ESG and DEI initiatives as a corporate priority, we anticipate others that may already be frustrated with perceived slow progress on sustainability, diversity and broader governance issues will look to double down and push for companies to stay the course.

    This sentiment will be particularly emboldened if governments consider rolling back regulations or shifting priorities. If it is perceived that lawmakers and regulators aren’t creating the framework to manage these issues, then we expect activists to take matters into their own hands by using shareholder meetings as forums or otherwise turning to the courts.

    Scrutiny of board composition and director accountability

    We are seeing investors pay closer attention to the fitness for office of individual board members, by using their vote to signal dissatisfaction and impose accountability for governance missteps when directors stand for election or re-election. This can be in relation to a company that has experienced an issue, or could follow individual directors to unrelated companies.

    Expect to see closer scrutiny of board composition and more protest votes against director elections. Even if candidates still easily obtain the ordinary majority needed to carry the resolution, this is a far cry from the near 100% backing candidates would typically receive, and, particularly for larger companies, shows at least some institutional investors (whose holding may have previously been seen as more passive) are sending a message.

    Leveraging technology and AI in activist strategies

    Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed a number of different fields, and has a role to play in the shareholder activism space as well, by making campaigns data driven and, as a consequence, more cost effective.

    AI can be deployed by activists to monitor and analyse tremendous amounts of data associated with corporate disclosures and financial performance, and to recognise the vulnerabilities and patterns in would-be candidates for a campaign. As these tools grow in sophistication, we expect to see activists be able to penetrate the market more deeply, and move with greater efficiency and precision in identifying opportunities.

    Activism has never been a simple strategy. We anticipate a continued evolution of the activist playbook in light of the above.

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Wyden, Colleagues Slam Draconian Immigration Registration Order

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore)

    March 25, 2025

    Washington D.C.—U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., today joined Senate colleagues in a letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) opposing the Trump administration’s resurrection of a draconian and discriminatory immigration policy that forces immigrants to register with the federal government and carry proof of their registration at all times.   

    “The Administration has explicitly linked this revived registration requirement to enforcement efforts, empowering federal prosecutors to target immigrants who fail to comply. This creates a perilous dilemma for immigrants who entered the country without inspection and have had no prior contact with federal authorities,” the lawmakers wrote to USCIS senior official Kika Scott. “Those who register risk exposing themselves to removal proceedings, while those who refrain from registering face the threat of criminal prosecution. The policy further jeopardizes millions of immigrants—including those with lawful status—by subjecting them to penalties for simply failing to carry proof of registration.” 

    The lawmakers continued, “This registration policy echoes historical precedents that have been widely discredited and condemned. The Alien Registration Act of 1940 was initially implemented during World War II in a climate of fear and xenophobia, requiring noncitizens to register at post offices across the country. Now, by dusting off and weaponizing an outdated law, the Trump administration is reviving a dangerous precedent that will undermine fundamental civil liberties, disproportionately burden immigrant communities and millions of mixed-status families, and transform America into a ‘carry your papers’ country.” 

    The lawmakers request answers by April 8, 2025, to questions including: 

    1. How does USCIS plan to implement this registration requirement, and what resources will be allocated to its implementation and enforcement?  
    2. What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that individuals who register are not automatically placed in removal proceedings or expedited removal? 
    3. What safeguards exist to prevent racial profiling and discriminatory enforcement practices in the application of this law?  
    4. Who will have access to any registration database and for what purposes? 

    The letter was led by U.S. Senator Edward J. Markey, D-Mass. In addition to Wyden, the letter was signed by Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Senators Alex Padilla, D-Calif., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. 

    The full text of the letter is here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Markey, Whip Durbin, Colleagues Slam Draconian Immigration Registration Order

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey

    Letter Text (PDF)

    Washington (March 25, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) led eight colleagues in writing today to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) senior official Kika Scott to express strong disapproval of the Trump administration’s resurrection of one of the country’s most draconian and discriminatory immigration policies: forcing immigrants to register with the federal government and carry proof of their registration at all times. 

    The letter was signed by Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

    In the letter, the lawmakers write, “The Administration has explicitly linked this revived registration requirement to enforcement efforts, empowering federal prosecutors to target immigrants who fail to comply. This creates a perilous dilemma for immigrants who entered the country without inspection and have had no prior contact with federal authorities. Those who register risk exposing themselves to removal proceedings, while those who refrain from registering face the threat of criminal prosecution. The policy further jeopardizes millions of immigrants—including those with lawful status—by subjecting them to penalties for simply failing to carry proof of registration.”

    The lawmakers continue, “This registration policy echoes historical precedents that have been widely discredited and condemned. The Alien Registration Act of 1940 was initially implemented during World War II in a climate of fear and xenophobia, requiring noncitizens to register at post offices across the country. Now, by dusting off and weaponizing an outdated law, the Trump administration is reviving a dangerous precedent that will undermine fundamental civil liberties, disproportionately burden immigrant communities and millions of mixed-status families, and transform America into a ‘carry your papers’ country.”

    The lawmakers request answers by April 8, 2025 to questions including:

    • How does USCIS plan to implement this registration requirement, and what resources will be allocated to its implementation and enforcement?
    • What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that individuals who register are not automatically placed in removal proceedings or expedited removal?
    • What safeguards exist to prevent racial profiling and discriminatory enforcement practices in the application of this law?
    • Who will have access to any registration database and for what purposes?

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Marshall Joins Senators Moran and Hawley Introducing Legislation to Provide Affordable, Reliable Energy to Kansas and Other States

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall
    Washington – U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas) joined Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) in introducing the Southwestern Power Administration Fund Establishment Act, which would help stabilize energy rates and improve the electric grid to states in the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), including Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. 
    Specifically, the SWPA would be granted the authority to operate on a self-funding, revolving fund. This change would allow SWPA more stable funding to lower customer rates, which can fluctuate because of market demands and severe weather. Additionally, the SWPA would have the ability to plan long-term infrastructure and power replacement improvements to avoid drastic and unnecessary spikes in power rates.
    “Kansans – especially our farmers and ranchers – need reliable and affordable power,” said Senator Marshall. “Consumers have suffered from high energy costs for too long, and this bill will help deliver stable and affordable power while improving our power grid infrastructure. I am proud to stand with Senators Jerry Moran and Josh Hawley in supporting this important legislation.”
    “It is critical that Kansans have access to reliable electricity at stable rates, especially during extreme and dangerous weather,” said Senator Moran. “This legislation will provide funding stability that will allow energy providers to make needed infrastructure improvements and prevent Kansans from suffering mass power outages.”
    “After the devastating tornadoes last weekend that left victims without power for days, Missourians deserve consistent and affordable energy,” said Senator Hawley. “This legislation will ensure that every Missourian has access to power they can rely on.”
    The legislation is supported by the Kansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc., Southwestern Power Resources Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and American Public Power Association.
    “Kansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc. and its member co-ops have strongly supported the Southwestern Power Fund Establishment Act for its ability to provide appropriated dollars that will improve grid reliability while helping to stabilize rates,” said Lee Tafanelli, CEO, Kansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc. “We thank our home state Sens. Moran and Marshall for bringing forward legislation that will have a positive impact on our rural electric cooperatives and their consumer-members.”
    “Federal hydropower is a reliably renewable generation resource,” said Nicki Fuller, Executive Director, Southwestern Power Resources Association. “This legislation recognizes the value of protecting that resource throughout the six-state region, making sure that these important assets are maintained. This legislation would go a long way toward ensuring grid reliability and affordably throughout the region for millions of homes, farms, and small businesses. I thank Sens. Moran and Marshall for introducing this important bill that represents good business sense.”
    “NRECA supports the Southwestern Power Administration Fund Establishment Act. The self-financed revolving loan fund authorized by this bill would allow the Southwestern Power Administration to better manage infrastructure needs while being more responsive to market conditions and electric demands created by extreme weather events,” – National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
    “The American Public Power Association applauds the introduction of the Southwestern Power Fund Establishment Act. Since 1943, not-for-profit public power utilities and rural electric cooperatives have successfully partnered with the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) to bring reliable hydropower produced at Army Corps dams to millions of customers in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. While SWPA customers pay all costs of generating and transmitting the electricity in their power rates, a complicated funding process has increasingly failed to provide the financial certainty necessary to steady power rates to customers during drought and extreme weather events. The Southwestern Power Fund Establishment Act would streamline this process in a manner that would help avoid rate spikes and economic hardship for communities served by public power utilities and rural electric cooperatives while continuing to ensure that SWPA customers pay all costs associated with generating and transmitting hydropower produced at Corps dams. It is a win-win for the federal government and communities served by not-for-profit electric utilities,” – American Public Power Association.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kennedy champions bill to help Louisiana farmers recover from crop loss

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
    WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, today reintroduced the Quality Loss Adjustment Improvement for Farmers Act. The bill would give farmers more flexibility by improving the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC)’s ability to set discounts for farmers who experience crop loss.
    “Too often, federal insurers give American farmers short shrift when regional disasters damage their crops. The Quality Loss Adjustment Improvement for Farmers Act would make sure that fickle government policies don’t control the fate of Louisiana farms,” said Kennedy.
    The Quality Loss Adjustment Improvement for Farmers Act would give the FCIC more latitude to review the methodology it uses to determine discounts for farmers who experience crop loss. It would give stakeholders input into the process of setting those discounts and require a report to be issued following the review.
    The bill would also allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) to establish a regional discount consideration that accounts for extreme weather events and natural disasters. 
    Background:
    The FCIC, which the RMA manages, provides federal crop insurance policies to approved insurance providers to sell coverage to America’s farmers and ranchers.
    The discounts provided to farmers who experience crop loss generally do not reflect the real damages farmers incur. This often leaves farmers without the flexibility they need to keep their farms afloat in the long run.
    The FCIC does not take regional disasters into account when it calculates discounts.
    Rep. Julia Letlow (R-La.) reintroduced the legislation in the House of Representatives.
    “Sudden crop losses due to severe weather have a heavy impact on the farmers at the heart of our nation’s food supply. By proposing much-needed flexibility and more specialized support to federal crop insurance programs, I’m fighting to ensure Louisiana farmers have the support they need when disaster strikes,” said Letlow.
    Full text of the Quality Loss Adjustment Improvement for Farmers Act is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Qifu Technology, Inc. Announces Pricing of Offering of US$600 Million Cash-par Settled Convertible Senior Notes

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SHANGHAI, China, March 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Qifu Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN; HKEx: 3660) (“Qifu Technology” or the “Company”), a leading AI-empowered Credit-Tech platform in China, today announced the pricing of its previously announced offering (the “Notes Offering”) of convertible senior notes in an aggregate principal amount of US$600 million due 2030 (the “Notes”). The Notes have been offered to persons reasonably believed to be qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The Company has granted the initial purchasers in the Notes Offering an option to purchase up to an additional US$90 million principal amount of the Notes, exercisable for settlement within a 13-day period beginning on, and including, the date on which the Notes are first issued.

    The Company plans to use the net proceeds from the Notes Offering for repurchasing the American depositary shares (“ADSs”) and/or class A ordinary shares of the Company concurrently with the pricing of the Notes Offering and from time to time after the pricing of the Notes Offering pursuant to a newly established share repurchase plan (the “March 2025 Share Repurchase Plan”) authorized by the board of directors of the Company. The March 2025 Share Repurchase Plan will run in addition to the Company’s existing share repurchase plan announced in November 2024. The Company expects the offering to be immediately accretive to 2025 earnings per ADS (“EPADS”) upon closing, facilitated by the execution of Concurrent Repurchase (as described below) and the cash-par conversion settlement mechanism of the Notes.

    Terms of the Notes

    The Notes will be general unsecured obligations of the Company and bear interest at a rate of 0.50% per year, payable semiannually in arrears on April 1 and October 1 of each year, beginning on October 1, 2025. The Notes will mature on April 1, 2030 unless repurchased, redeemed, or converted in accordance with their terms prior to such date. Holders of the Notes may require the Company to repurchase all or part of their Notes for cash on April 3, 2028 or in the event of certain fundamental changes, in each case, at a repurchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Notes to be repurchased plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to, but excluding, the relevant repurchase date.

    Prior to the close of business on the business day immediately preceding the 50th scheduled trading day before the maturity date, the Notes will be convertible at the option of the holders only upon satisfaction of certain conditions and during certain periods. On or after the 50th scheduled trading day before the maturity date until the close of business on the third scheduled trading day immediately preceding the maturity date, holders may convert their Notes at their option at any time. The initial conversion rate of the Notes is 16.7475 ADSs, per US$1,000 principal amount of the Notes, which is equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately US$59.71 per ADS and represents an approximately 35.0% conversion premium over the closing price of the Company’s ADSs on the Nasdaq on March 25, 2025, which was US$44.23 per ADS. The conversion rate of the Notes is subject to adjustment upon the occurrence of certain events.

    The Notes contemplate cash-par settlement upon conversion. Upon conversion, the Company will pay cash in the aggregate principal amount of the Notes being converted and have the right to elect to settle the conversion consideration for amounts in excess of the aggregate principal amount using cash, ADSs, or a combination of cash and ADSs. Holders may elect to receive class A ordinary shares in lieu of any ADSs deliverable upon conversion, subject to certain conditions and procedures.

    In addition, the Company may redeem for cash all but not part of the Notes in the event of certain changes in the tax laws or if less than 10% of the aggregate principal amount of the Notes originally issued remains outstanding at such time, in each case, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Notes to be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to, but excluding, the related redemption date. Any redemption may occur only prior to the 50th scheduled trading day immediately preceding the maturity date.

    Concurrent and Future Repurchases under the March 2025 Share Repurchase Plan

    The board of directors of the Company has approved the March 2025 Share Repurchase Plan, under which the Company is authorized to use all the net proceeds from the Notes Offering to repurchase the ADSs and/or class A ordinary shares. This includes (i) the Concurrent Repurchase (as described below) and (ii) the repurchase of additional ADSs and/or class A ordinary shares of the Company on the open market and/or through other means after the pricing of the notes and from time to time.

    Under the March 2025 Share Repurchase Plan, concurrently with the pricing of the Notes Offering, the Company plans to repurchase ADSs with an aggregate value of approximately US$230 million from certain purchasers of the Notes in off-market privately negotiated transactions effected through one of the initial purchasers or its affiliates, as the Company’s agent, at a price per ADS equal to US$44.23, the last reported sale price per ADS on the Nasdaq on March 25, 2025 (such transactions, the “Concurrent Repurchase”). The Concurrent Repurchase is expected to facilitate the initial hedges by purchasers of the Notes who desire to hedge their investments in the Notes, as the Company intends to repurchase the entire initial delta of the transaction. This will allow such purchasers of the Notes to establish short positions that generally correspond to commercially reasonable initial hedges of their investments in the Notes.

    In addition to the Concurrent Repurchase, the Company may repurchase additional ADSs and/or class A ordinary shares after the pricing of the Notes Offering and from time to time pursuant to the March 2025 Share Repurchase Plan. The share repurchases may be effected on the open market at prevailing market prices, in privately negotiated transactions, in block trades and/or through other legally permissible means, depending on market conditions and will be implemented in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations, including the requirements of Rule 10b-18 and/or Rule 10b5-1 under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

    The Concurrent Repurchase and future repurchases pursuant to the Company’s March 2025 Share Repurchase Plan are generally expected to create meaningful EPADS accretion for and offset potential dilution to the holders of the Company’s class A ordinary shares (including in the form of ADSs) upon conversion of the Notes, taking into the account the settlement method of the Notes.

    Other Matters

    Any repurchase activities of the Company, whether the Concurrent Repurchase and future repurchases pursuant to the Company’s March 2025 Share Repurchase Plan or otherwise pursuant to its other share repurchase plan(s) and program(s), could increase, or reduce the magnitude of any decrease in, the market price of the ADSs and/or class A ordinary shares and/or the trading price of the Notes.

    The Company expects that potential purchasers of the Notes may employ a convertible arbitrage strategy to hedge their exposure in connection with the Notes. Any such activities by potential purchasers of the Notes following the pricing of the Notes and prior to the maturity date could affect the market price of the ADSs and/or class A ordinary shares and/or the trading price of the Notes. The effect, if any, of the activities described in this paragraph, including the direction or magnitude, on the market price of the ADSs and/or class A ordinary shares and/or the trading price of the Notes will depend on a variety of factors, including market conditions, and cannot be ascertained at this time.

    The Notes, the ADSs deliverable upon conversion of the Notes, if any, and the class A ordinary shares represented thereby or deliverable upon conversion of the Notes in lieu thereof have not been registered under the Securities Act, or any securities laws of any other places. They may not be offered or sold within the United States or to U.S. persons, except to persons reasonably believed to be qualified institutional buyers in reliance on the exemption from registration provided by Rule 144A under the Securities Act.

    The Company expects to close the Notes Offering on or about March 27, 2025, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions.

    This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to purchase any securities, nor shall there be a sale of the securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

    This press release contains information about the pending Notes Offering, and there can be no assurance that the Notes Offering will be completed.

    About Qifu Technology

    Qifu Technology is a leading AI-empowered Credit-Tech platform in China. By leveraging its sophisticated machine learning models and data analytics capabilities, the Company provides a comprehensive suite of technology services to assist financial institutions and consumers and SMEs in the loan lifecycle, ranging from borrower acquisition, preliminary credit assessment, fund matching and post-facilitation services. The Company is dedicated to making credit services more accessible and personalized to consumers and SMEs through Credit-Tech services to financial institutions.

    For more information, please visit: https://ir.qifu.tech.

    Safe Harbor Statement

    Any forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made under the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “will,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “future,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates” and similar statements. Qifu Technology may also make written or oral forward-looking statements in its periodic reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), in announcements made on the website of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “Hong Kong Stock Exchange”), in its annual report to shareholders, in press releases and other written materials and in oral statements made by its officers, directors or employees to third parties. Statements that are not historical facts, including the Company’s beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement, which factors include but not limited to the following: the Company’s growth strategies, the Company’s cooperation with 360 Group, changes in laws, rules and regulatory environments, the recognition of the Company’s brand, market acceptance of the Company’s products and services, trends and developments in the Credit-Tech industry, governmental policies relating to the Credit-Tech industry, general economic conditions in China and around the globe, and assumptions underlying or related to any of the foregoing. Further information regarding these and other risks and uncertainties is included in Qifu Technology’s filings with the SEC and the announcements on the website of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. All information provided in this press release is as of the date of this press release, and Qifu Technology does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement, except as required under applicable law.

    For further information, please contact:

    Qifu Technology

    E-mail: ir@360shuke.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How Netflix has shaped (and shattered) our content landscape over the past decade – and what comes next

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexa Scarlata, Research Fellow, Media & Communication, RMIT University

    Shutterstock

    To mark 10 years since Netflix began operating in Australia, we and our colleagues at the Streaming Industries and Genres Network have published a report that looks at the state of Australia’s streaming industry today – and back at the platforms that have failed over the years.

    It once seemed like Netflix was the be-all and end-all of streaming in Australia. But a decade of competition with other streamers, and stress on local content, paint a very different picture.

    The streaming wars rage on

    Australia’s “streaming wars” kicked off in early 2015 with the arrival of Stan and Netflix, joining smaller players already on the scene. At the time, some industry insiders predicted the new streaming video-on-demand services would quickly consolidate – that there was room for only two major players: Netflix and one other.

    These early assumptions were proven wrong. Instead, Australia has sustained numerous streamers of different sizes, audiences and ownership. The larger, more generalist services such as Netflix, Prime Video and Disney+ compete directly with each other for exclusive content.

    Other niche genre players such as Shudder (horror) and Hayu (reality TV) have managed to stay afloat by catering to a specific audience segment and keeping their prices low.

    There have also been a few fatalities along the way. Quickflix and Presto were early to the market. Both services had gained considerable ground by 2014, with Quicklix leading the way. But they were eventually viewed as sluggish and limited in comparison to Netflix.

    Netflix always on top

    Netflix has always been the most popular streaming service in Australia. One million users had access to the platform within just three months of its arrival in 2015.

    In 2020, analytics firm Ampere Analysis identified Australia as the most highly-penetrated Netflix market in the world, then available in 63% of Australian homes, compared to 50% in the United States.

    In the first half of 2024, it was used by 67% of Australian adults, including some 800,000 people with an ad-tier subscription.

    The global behemoth has produced some notable local titles.

    In January of last year, the series adaptation of Boy Swallows Universe became Netflix’s most successful Australian-made show in its first two weeks on the platform.

    Later in April, the second season of the Heartbreak High reboot debuted at number one in Australia and stayed on the Global Top 10 English TV Series list for three consecutive weeks.



    Read more:
    Streaming, surveillance and the power of suggestion: the hidden cost of 10 years of Netflix

    Collectively, Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, Paramount+ and Stan spent A$225.2 million on 55 commissioned or co-commissioned Australian programs in the 2023–24 financial year.

    That said, their commitment to the local production sector over the last decade has been limited, as they have no obligation to invest in local content.

    A lack of regulation decimates local genres

    The lack of streaming regulation in Australia, alongside the gradual watering-down of commercial broadcaster obligations, has resulted in the collapse of investment in local content.

    Children’s TV, documentary, drama TV programming and Australian film have all suffered as a result.

    The introduction of multi-national streamers has radically shifted financing practices in Australia, leaving our production sector in distress.

    Last year, we partnered with ACMI to pull together a symposium where streaming industry insiders discussed the deeper implications of streaming on local genres, as well as the opportunities and challenges ahead.

    We heard from Andy Barclay, manager of business and legal affairs at Screen Producer Australia, who said the traditional “jigsaw puzzle” of finance planning based on international territories was all but gone in favour of major streamers offering full funding and “a little premium” upfront.

    But this comes at a cost, as the streamers then control global distribution and hold a tight grip on viewership data. It also means local production can become beholden to the whims of US business interests. As Barclay explain:

    These huge [streaming] companies, their Australian businesses […] we don’t drive their business decisions. It’s what happens over in the United States that drives their business decisions.

    Nonetheless, having fresh, cash-rich and risk-taking players in the Australian content market has led to opportunities for some local creators.

    As Sam Lingham of Australian comedy group Aunty Donna remarked on the same panel:

    Netflix, creatively, were pretty hands-off. We pitched them the show and they were like, ‘yeah, go do that’.

    What’s on the horizon?

    The streaming sector in Australia is now poised to splinter even further.

    Warner Bros Discovery will launch its streaming platform, Max, next week. It will be a real blow to the Foxtel-owned streamer, Binge, which has long touted its exclusive rights to much of the Warner catalogue.

    There are also concerns about the access and affordability of sport. This year, a new AFL broadcast agreement with Fox Sports and Channel Seven saw Saturday night games move behind a paywall. People will now need Kayo Sports or Foxtel to watch these games live.

    Big streamers have also entered the fray. Back in 2016, Netflix said it had no intention of investing in live sport. But we’re now seeing it and other players such as Prime Video, Apple TV+ and YouTube buy into sports rights around the world.

    According to Free TV Chief Executive Bridget Fair

    we saw it [in 2023] with Amazon hoovering up the whole of the World Cup cricket and it’s going to keep happening […] people who previously got a lot of stuff for free are going to have to start paying.

    Finally, many streamers – Netflix, Binge, Prime Video and Stan – have introduced or announced that they will introduce ad-tier subscriptions. Streamers can expect to see better profit margins on their advertising-supported offerings, compared to the monthly subscription model.

    Cheaper, ad-supported subscriptions may prove to be a popular option for viewers stacking multiple subscriptions. Already, 800,000 Australians have signed up to Netflix’s A$7.99 + ads option. But this does make for a disrupted, broadcast-like viewing experience (and one you still have to pay for).

    As the last 10 years of streaming in Australia has shown, the future can be hard to predict when it comes to new players entering established markets. One thing seems certain though – Netflix is here to stay.

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

    – ref. How Netflix has shaped (and shattered) our content landscape over the past decade – and what comes next – https://theconversation.com/how-netflix-has-shaped-and-shattered-our-content-landscape-over-the-past-decade-and-what-comes-next-251471

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: PNG’s Marape and NZ’s Luxon sign new partnership marking 50 years

    RNZ News

    The prime ministers of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea have signed a new statement of partnership marking 50 years of bilateral relations between the two countries.

    The document — which focuses on education, trade, security, agriculture and fisheries — was signed by Christopher Luxon and James Marape at the Beehive in Wellington last night.

    It will govern the relationship between the two countries through until 2029 and replaces the last agreement signed by Marape in 2021 with then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

    Marking the signing, Luxon announced $1 million would be allocated in response to Papua New Guinea’s aspirations to strengthen public sector institutions.

    “That funding will be able to support initiatives like strengthen cooperation between disaster preparedness institutions and also exchanging expertise in the governance of state owned enterprises in particular,” Luxon said.

    In his response Marape acknowledged the long enduring relationship between the government and peoples of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

    He said the new statement of partnership was an important blueprint on how the two countries would progress their relationship into the future.

    “Papua New Guinea brings to the table, as far as our relationship is concerned, our close proximity to Asia. We straddle the Pacific and Southeast Asia, we have an affinity to as much as our own affinity with our relations in the Pacific,” Marape said.

    “Our dual presence at APEC continues to ring [sic] home the fact that we belong to a family of nations and we work back to back on many fronts.”

    Meeting Peters
    Today, Marape will meet with Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters and leader of the opposition Chris Hipkins.

    Later in the week, Marape is scheduled to travel to Hamilton where he will meet with the NZ Papua New Guinea Business Council and with Papua New Guinea scholarship recipients at Waikato University.

    James Marape is accompanied by his spouse Rachael Marape and a ministerial delegation including Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko, Trade Minister Richard Maru, Minister for Livestock Seki Agisa and Higher Education Minister Kinoka Feo.

    This is Marape’s first official visit to New Zealand following his re-election as prime minister in the last national elections in 2022.

    According to the PNG government, the visit signals a growing relationship between the two countries, especially in trade and investment, cultural exchange, and the newly-added Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme that New Zealand has extended to Papua New Guineans to work in Aotearoa.

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

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Budget delivers cheaper medicines and more bulk billing but leaves out long-term health reform

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Cutler, Professor and Director, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University

    Less than two months from an election, the Albanese government last night presented a budget that aims to swing the voting pendulum its way.

    Headline health expenditure includes:

    • $8.5 billion to encourage more GP bulk billing and to train doctors and nurses
    • $1.7 billion to help public hospitals reduce their waiting lists
    • $644 million to establish 50 more urgent care clinics
    • $689 million to reduce the price of prescriptions to $25 for non-concessional patients
    • $793 million for women’s health, to provide greater access to contraception, treatment for urinary tract infections and greater access to perimenopause and menopause care.

    These announcements were already strategically made over the past month to maximise media coverage and build election momentum.

    Australians want more access to affordable health care – and the budget delivers this for many. But it doesn’t push the process of health reform forward, which is needed to secure the health system’s long-term sustainability.

    How does this compare to previous health budgets?

    While the budget contains large health expenditure items, a significant amount was not strictly new funding, but already provided for by the government.

    Consequently, the budget only allocates an additional $7.7 billion to health compared to actual spending for 2024-25.

    This increase aligns with steady long-term spending trends from previous years. It reflects a 6.6% increase in nominal spending (when inflation is included), but only a 3.9% increase in real spending (when inflation is taken out).

    Actual and estimated expenditure from the health portfolio

    Health spending as a proportion of the budget is reducing.
    Treasury

    The proportion of the budget spent on health could be considered historically low, projected to be 15.9% for 2025-26.

    It’s unclear whether Australians want more of the budget allocated to health, but there is certainly a need for greater investment.

    Will this health budget improve Australians’ health?

    The Albanese government is trying to kill three birds with one stone with this health budget. It wants to reduce the cost of living, improve health outcomes, and win an election.

    Keeping the cost of living down and improving health services are the top two most important issues for this election. Headline health announcements directly address these two issues.

    However, they also deliver a political benefit by shifting the media spotlight away from Opposition leader Peter Dutton. He was unable to legitimately counter attack headline health announcements given his unpopularity when he was a health minister. Instead, he promised to match some health announcements if elected.

    Increasing bulk-billing rates and reducing prescription prices will directly reduce out-of-pocket costs for many Australians. This will mostly be for people without a concession card.

    Increasing access to urgent care clinics will also help reduce cost of living pressures because they deliver services free of charge.

    Making health care cheaper for patients will also improve health outcomes. Many Australians sometimes choose not to access health care because of its cost, which can lead to worse health outcomes and expensive hospital care.

    The magnitude of any health improvement will depend on how patients respond to cheaper health care.

    More health benefit will go to patients who start seeing their GP rather than staying at home and trying to manage their condition themselves.

    The health benefit will be less for patients who start seeing their GP instead of an emergency department or urgent care clinic, because they are substituting one place of care for another.

    Is this good health policy?

    There is an “opportunity cost” every time the government spends money. Using the health budget to reduce the cost of living means less money to improve the health system elsewhere.

    In that context, this health budget has missed an opportunity to build a more sustainable health system.

    Medicare is not the best way to fund community care from GPs, nurses and allied health providers. It imposes barriers to establishing seamless multidisciplinary team-based care. These include restricting the types of services non-GP clinicians deliver, and not funding enough care coordination. People with chronic disease, such as diabetes and heart disease, often fall through the cracks and become sicker.

    A review of general practice incentives submitted to the health department last year recommended transition towards new funding models. This could include funding models that pay for a bundle of services delivered together as a team, rather than a fee for every service delivered by each team member.

    But payment reform is extremely hard. Medicare has not substantially changed since 1984 when it was first introduced.

    Given this budget allocated $7.9 billion to increase bulk billing alone, and $2.4 billion ongoing, this budget has a missed opportunity to start the payment reform process. This extra funding will reinforce current payment structures, and could have been used as leverage to get GPs over the line on reforming Medicare.

    The government also missed an opportunity to start reforming the health workforce. An independent review, also submitted last year, sought to improve access to primary care, improve care quality, and improve workforce productivity.

    It outlined 18 recommendations, including payment reform, to remove barriers to increase access to care delivered by multidisciplinary teams of doctors, nurses and allied health providers such as psychologists and physiotherapists.

    Again, there was nothing in this budget to suggest this will be pursued in 2025-26.

    What happens next?

    What next usually depends on which party wins the election.

    In this case, Dutton has agreed to match the health budget spending on bulk billing and price reductions for PBS scripts. But the Coalition has not committed to 50 more urgent care clinics.

    Whichever party wins, there is an urgent need to substantially reform health care if our health system is to remain one of the world’s best.



    Read more:
    At a glance: the 2025 federal budget

    Henry Cutler was a member of the Expert Advisory Panel that delivered its final review of general practice incentives mentioned in this article. He received remuneration from the Department of Health and Aged Care for this role.

    – ref. Budget delivers cheaper medicines and more bulk billing but leaves out long-term health reform – https://theconversation.com/budget-delivers-cheaper-medicines-and-more-bulk-billing-but-leaves-out-long-term-health-reform-251921

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What works to prevent violence against women? Here’s what the evidence says

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristin Diemer, Associate Professor of Sociology, The University of Melbourne

    Journalist and activist Jess Hill’s Quarterly Essay argues Australia’s primary prevention framework to end violence against women isn’t working.

    Hill says the framework focuses too much on addressing gender inequality and changing attitudes, while overlooking crucial opportunities to address drivers of violence such as child maltreatment, alcohol and gambling.

    So what does the evidence say works to prevent violence against women?

    Australia’s plan to reduce and prevent violence

    The World Health Organisation RESPECT framework guides most global intervention programs and includes seven specific strategies to prevent violence against women:

    • Relationship skills strengthening
    • Empowerment of women
    • Services ensured
    • Poverty reduced
    • Environments (schools, workplaces, public spaces) made safe
    • Child and adolescent abuse prevented
    • Transformed attitudes, beliefs and norms.

    These are embedded in the 12 actions of Australia’s prevention framework, called Change the Story, but are not explicitly listed.

    The RESPECT strategies are also included in Australia’s National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032.

    Interventions are usually separated into three complementary, but overlapping approaches: primary (prevention), secondary (early intervention) and tertiary (responses).

    Primary prevention in Change the Story is aimed at addressing the underlying drivers of violence before it occurs. But most interventions have dual purposes of reducing or preventing current and future violence, as we transform into a violence-free community.

    Australia’s national plan includes reducing the harmful use of alcohol, support for children to live free from violence, holding perpetrators to account, changing the law, and promoting gender equality in public and private lives.

    Together, these strategies chip away at harmful underlying attitudes that drive domestic violence.

    Australia’s strategy for preventing violence against women includes holding perpetrators to account.
    Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

    What does the evidence say works?

    Systematic reviews of interventions to prevent or reduce violence against women and girls find that sufficient investment into the right programs can address the core drivers of violence and lead to a significant reduction and prevention of violence.

    The reviews identify that most successful interventions do not typically separate out prevention from early intervention and response. They focus on gender dynamics, power and control, and locally relevant social structures that disempower women and girls.

    The global program What Works to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls, for example, reviewed 96 evaluations of interventions. Of these, seven interventions had positive effects across all three domains of responding to, reducing and preventing domestic violence.

    None of the effective interventions were the same, but they had common features.

    One of the common indicators of success was that they addressed multiple drivers of violence while being relevant to what was important in the participants’ lives, such as an intervention to reduce HIV or couples counselling. These two interventions were designed to challenge gender inequity and the use of violence, while empowering couples with improved communications skills.

    Effective interventions also commonly included support for survivors, for things such as mental health support, safe spaces, empowerment activities and mediation skills.

    Effective interventions incldue support for survivors and empowerment activites.
    Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock

    Equally important was including work with perpetrators or key influencers, such as other family members or local leaders. One example developed in Tajikistan involved in-laws, which enabled young women to attend and implement ideas from the program into their family life.

    The final two key components of successful interventions were related to implementation of the programs: having the ability to deliver the program with sufficient, well-trained and supported staff, and for a length of time allowing reflection and learning through experience.

    The Transforming Masculinities program in the Democratic Republic of Congo promoted gender equality and positive masculinity within faith communities. Careful selection of staff and volunteers was crucial to the intervention’s success.

    Effective interventions were delivered over 15 to 30 months. They included a combination of community activities and weekly workshops, allowing facilitators to build on content from previous sessions.

    Putting this all together, the most effective programs were rigorously planned and suitable to the client group. They focused on multiple core drivers of violence against women and girls. They worked with perpetrators and community influencers. They also worked with and supported survivors.

    Elements which prevented programs from being effective included short-term or inadequate funding, and a lack of sufficient planning to ensure the intervention was adapted to the client’s context.

    We have clear evidence about they types of programs that can prevent and reduce violence against women and girls, both internationally and in Australia. We also have service providers and program leaders who have been sharing evidence with governments for more than five decades. What we need now is the will and commitment for intensive programming.



    Read more:
    Despite some key milestones since 2000, Australia still has a long way to go on gender equality

    Kristin Diemer has received funding from the Australian Research Council, ANROWS, the Department of Social Services, the Victorian Government and is on the Advisory Group for the Australian National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey.

    – ref. What works to prevent violence against women? Here’s what the evidence says – https://theconversation.com/what-works-to-prevent-violence-against-women-heres-what-the-evidence-says-252873

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Speech to Project Auckland Luncheon

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks, Murray, for that introduction.  

    It’s a pleasure to be speaking with you here in New Zealand’s capital city of growth, at this launch of the Project Auckland report.  

    Can I start by acknowledging my parliamentary colleague Hon Simeon Brown. He is unquestionably the biggest advocate for Auckland I know – and is a staunch advocate for you all around the Cabinet table.  

    I also want to acknowledge Project Auckland Editor Fran O’Sullivan, Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, and my former parliamentary colleague and boss Simon Bridges.  

    While I am a boy from Lower Hutt, I want to reassure you that I know and love this city, having lived here for two years, having many friends who live here, and am at the moment almost a weekly visitor. 

    Auckland is critical to New Zealand’s future. We are not going to be successful in growing our economy if we don’t think carefully about how we enable Auckland, as our largest and most important city, to grow and thrive. 

    That’s why government is investing heavily into transport in Auckland, through new Roads of National Significance, new busways, and commuter rail. 

    Without question, the largest of these planned investments is a second harbour crossing.  

    In fact, it will be one of the most expensive infrastructure investments in New Zealand history.  

    Our existing bridge is old, and even with the clip-on lanes, it’s expected to struggle with forecast increases in demand.   

    Despite the daunting cost, and the other challenges that come with the project, advancing an additional harbour crossing is a priority for this Government.  

    Right now, there is a barge in the harbour undertaking geotechnical, environmental, and utilities investigations of the Harbour floor – the first-time studies of this kind have been done.  

    NTZA are about to kick off early market soundings on this project, largely to help us make the decision every Aucklander is waiting for: bridge or tunnel. We expect to make that decision mid-2026. 

    Being realistic, this project won’t be built for a while yet – but Auckland doesn’t need to wait that long to experience a transformational transport project.  

    Everyone in this room knows the potential City Rail Link has to enable the growth Auckland needs. 

    Once open next year, CRL will double Auckland’s rail capacity and reduce congestion across the city, enabling Aucklanders to get to where they want to go faster. 

    It is critical for the city’s future that we take advantage of CRL and ensure that the maximum benefits are felt by Aucklanders.  

    We must focus high density, mixed-use developments around CRL stations – with as many jobs, houses, services and amenities within walking distance as possible.  

    This approach is known as transit-oriented development, and has been adopted by the world’s best and most liveable cities – think Stockholm, Copenhagen, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Singapore. 

    Cities that embrace transit orientated development consistently outperform those that don’t across multiple metrics: they experience increases in productivity, lower unemployment, higher population growth, increased availability of homes, and more stable rents. 

    And with CRL, we have a once in a generation chance to embrace this in Auckland. 
     

    Consent decline 

    This is why I was so frustrated last week to see a resource consent application to build a $100m office building on K Road – within walking distance of the new CRL station – was denied by commissioners.   

    Frankly, this decision made me feel physically ill.  

    How can it possibly be that an 11-story building, which includes retail spaces and food and beverage stores, alongside office and commercial spaces for more than 400 people, is turned down in the centre of New Zealand’s biggest city? 

    The site it is currently planned to be on is a gravel pit. You heard that correctly. Our current planning laws are so fundamentally broken that a gravel pit in the CBD of Auckland is unable to be developed into a new office building.  

    The commissioners’ report said “The principal concern for the board is the scale of the development.” 

    Which might be more understandable if that was said about a development in a small regional town, but is astounding when there is a 20 story building within 100 metres.     

    Putting it simply, and excuse the RMA language, the commissioners when declining this application concluded that the adverse effects related to built form and appearance, streetscape, and historic heritage had not been sufficiently avoided such that the effects on the environment were considered ‘more than minor’.  

    This is precisely why we are scrapping the RMA, and replacing it with a radically more enabling system predicated on property rights. As you will have hopefully seen, I announced the architecture for our new system earlier this week.  

    A number of the changes we are progressing would have likely led to this K-Road development being approved rather than declined.  

    Our planned standardised zoning approach will help us move away from considering matters such as built form and appearance, or streetscape.  

    It will be clear what you can build and where, with fewer restrictions encouraging increased creativity in our built form – likely improving the look of our cities.    

    What I want to see in our new planning system is that development like this, due to its proximity to rapid transit and the central city, would be able to proceed without the need to gain approval at all – instead proceeding as a permitted activity through a standardised zone.  

    The other, more technical change we are proposing to make is the removal of what is known as non-complying activity status. The RMA states that a consent can only be granted for a non-complying activity if the adverse effects of the activity are minor, or the activity will not be contrary to objectives and policies of a plan. 

    In layman’s terms, this creates a barrier to some of these larger projects, with a much higher bar for approval, which sometimes is insurmountable.   

    This K-Road development was one of these non-complying activities. Remember that McDonalds in Wanaka that was declined a few weeks ago? Also a non-complying activity. That Southland windfarm that was declined last week? You guessed it: non-complying activity.  

    8-10% of all resource consent applications every year are for non-complying activities – and therefore face this sometimes impossibly high-bar.  

    By removing non-complying activities in our new system, alongside narrowing the effects considered in the planning system, we will making it substantially easier for these big projects to get approval.  
     

    PC 78 

    Moving on from K-Road – another issue that has been causing significant uncertainty for Auckland Council, as well as Aucklanders, has been the ongoing saga with it’s current plan change process, known as PC 78.  

    Auckland Council has been progressing PC 78 since mid-2022. This was the vehicle that was intended to implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development – more commonly known as the NPS-UD, and the Medium Density Residential Standards – more commonly known as the MDRS. Apologies for the acronym soup. 

     

    The idea was that the MDRS, which enabled more density in the suburbs, and the NPS-UD, which enabled more density around CBDs and rapid transit, were both meant to be adopted by councils quickly – and the last Government gave them new planning tools to achieve this.   

    This, however, did not quite pan out. Fast forward to today, years after these were introduced, Auckland Council are still going through their plan change process to implement them. 

    In fairness to them, there have been significant challenges along the way. Cyclone Gabrielle and flooding events, and the change in Government has now made the progress of PC 78 tricky, to say the least.  

    I think Mayor Brown put it best when he called the current situation “a bit like RMA gymnastics”. 

    Following the floods, Auckland Council has seen the need to address a number of new natural hazard areas prone to flooding.  

    Unfortunately, and frankly, annoyingly, the plan change process they had to use for PC 78, does not allow downzoning. It wasn’t envisaged at the time that councils would need to do anything other than upzoning using this process, and now they are stuck.  

    The other issue is the light rail corridor. Auckland Council left this blank in PC 78, anticipating new station location announcements, which obviously did not come, as we won the election, and scrapped this wasteful project as promised. 

    We also have also communicated changes to the rules around the MDRS, as we campaigned on, therefore changing Auckland Council’s approach to PC 78 yet again. 

    These things have left Auckland Council in a very confusing situation not entirely of their own making – although I do want to say, that if they had they delivered this plan change on the timeframes originally required of them, a number of these issues would be much easier to manage now.  

    With us about to introduce a new RMA system, and this having dragged on for frankly far too long already, we want Auckland Council to bank some quick-wins for density and development now. Aucklanders have waited for too long.  

    That’s why I can confirm today that I have changed my legal  “direction”, made under the RMA, on Auckland Council on the timing and sequencing of decisions on PC 78. 

    This change will bring forward decisions on the city centre, by ten months from the previously required date of March 2026 to May 2025.  

    This will almost immediately support the enablement of thousands of dwellings and significant development potential in the heart of Auckland – where basically everyone accepts this kind of growth is critical.  

    We are able to do this because the city centre parts of PC 78 are discrete from the rest of the changes and have been through submissions and hearings already.  

    Locking in this part of the plan change as soon as possible is a massive win for our biggest city, and a massive win for economic growth.  

    For the time being, the remainder of PC 78 will still need to be completed by March 2026 as per the law.  

    I note that Auckland Council, in their submission on the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, which is currently before the Environment Select Committee, have asked for changes to enable the immediate withdrawal of the remaining parts of PC 78.  

    As this Bill is currently before Select Committee, and due to come back to Parliament later in the year, I am unable to provide comment on whether these suggestions will be incorporated.  

    However, I can confirm this is something that is being considered as part of the Committee’s process, and I’ll have more to say on this in due course.  

    I am grateful to the work of Mayor Brown and his council in advancing housing and urban outcomes for our great city of Auckland.  

    In my experience, Mayor Brown has been steadfast in his support for sensible density in the city centre, in Auckland’s metro-centres, and near key transport connections. I want to thank him for his leadership, and for bringing sense back into the density debate in Auckland.  

    This situation has without a doubt been the most complex I have had to deal with as a Minister. If anything, it underscores the urgent need for our replacement planning system.  

    Aucklanders shouldn’t need a PhD in planning or a team of lawyers to understand the progress of a major zoning change going on in their backyards. Our new system will have plans that are much more streamlined and simple, clearly communicating what Kiwis can do on their own property, without the years and years of backwards and forwards.  
     

    Conclusion  

    In conclusion, I want to repeat what I have said in my column in the Project Auckland report we are all here to launch today:  

    Auckland has a bright future. Whenever I visit Auckland, I get a palpable sense of opportunity knocking. Auckland isn’t waiting, it’s getting on with the mission of growth. It is bursting at the seams with opportunities — now, it is the responsibility of all of us to help make it happen.  

    Thank you – I will now take your questions.  

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Cross-party involvement on resource management reform

    Source: New Zealand Government

    The Government has today written to the Labour and Greens parties, inviting their involvement in the process to replace the Resource Management Act with a far more liberal planning system, say Minister Responsible for RMA Reform Chris Bishop and Under-Secretary Simon Court.
    “Everyone agrees that the RMA is broken and in desperate need of replacement. It fails to deliver the infrastructure and development New Zealanders need, while at the same time fails to properly protect the environment,” Mr Bishop says.
    “All three parties in Government campaigned on replacing the Resource Management Act with a new planning system that was much more enabling of development. We have a democratic mandate to carry out these reforms, and have made good progress so far.
    “The benefits of the new planning system announced yesterday cannot be overstated. 
    “The starting point of enduring reform is good public policy, and the Expert Advisory Group’s report, endorsed by Cabinet, is a very good start that provides the basis for high quality new laws.
    “As I indicated yesterday, I have today written to the major Opposition parties – Labour and the Greens – inviting cross-party engagement in the development of our new planning system. 
    “As a first step to seeing if we can work together, I have offered to provide them with a substantive briefing from officials at the Ministry for the Environment as well as Janette Campbell, the Chair of the Expert Advisory Group. This will be an opportunity to discuss the report together and answer any questions.
    “Following this there will be an opportunity for discussion between parties on potential areas of mutual agreement. 
    “Where we see that compromise could be possible without undermining the intent of our reforms, the government will work collaboratively with the opposition to see whether a mutually agreeable position can be reached.
    “The government will not be compromising on the commitments outlined in the Government’s coalition agreements and election manifestos. However, a significant amount of detail goes into reform this size, and I hope that it is in some of this detail that we can find common ground.”

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Missoula man sentenced to ten years in prison for trafficking meth and fentanyl

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    MISSOULA — A Missoula man who trafficked methamphetamine and fentanyl was sentenced today to 120 months in prison, to be followed by five years of supervised release, U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme said.

    Andrew David Ambler, 27, pleaded guilty in November 2024 to possession with intent to distribute controlled substances.

    U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy presided.

    The government alleged in court documents that on May 24, 2024, Ambler was arrested by members of the Montana Regional Violent Crime Task Force on a parole violation for suspected drug trafficking and firearm-related offenses. Prior to being taken into custody, Ambler attempted to flee on foot while trying to get to his vehicle and discarded a backpack and a bag that were on his person.  The backpack and bag contained a loaded .22 caliber pistol, methamphetamine, and fentanyl.  A search of Ambler’s vehicle resulted in the seizure of approximately 5,000 fentanyl pills, which he admitted he intended to distribute.

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecuted the case.  The FBI’s Montana Regional Violent Crime Task Force conducted the investigation.

    This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. For more information about Project Safe Neighborhoods, please visit https://www.justice.gov/psn.

    XXX

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Missoula woman sentenced to thirteen years in prison for trafficking meth and fentanyl

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    MISSOULA — A Missoula woman who trafficked methamphetamine and fentanyl was sentenced today to 156 months in prison, to be followed by five years of supervised release, U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme said.

    Emily Svoboda, 31, pleaded guilty in November 2024 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances.

    U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy presided.

    The government alleged in court documents that on November 23, 2022, a confidential source purchased 100 fentanyl pills from Svoboda for $600. The source asked Svoboda if she had any “clear” – a slang term for meth – and Svoboda said she did not currently but likely would be resupplying later in the evening.  The confidential source asked for a “roll” of fentanyl pills (100), and Svoboda said she could provide that.  Svoboda had a bag of approximately 200 pills but was not willing to sell all of them.  Five days later, on November 28, 2022, the confidential source purchased 26.5 grams of methamphetamine and 50 fentanyl pills from Svoboda for $1,000.  And on December 9, 2022, Svoboda sold the source 53.7 grams of methamphetamine and 100 fentanyl pills for $1,400.  A review of Svoboda’s Facebook pages revealed messages related to drug transactions and she admitted to law enforcement she sold drugs. She said she received between two and four ounces of methamphetamine from a co-conspirator every two to four weeks from roughly September to December 2022.

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecuted the case.  The ATF, Missoula Police Department, and Missoula HIDTA conducted the investigation.

    This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. For more information about Project Safe Neighborhoods, please visit https://www.justice.gov/psn.

    XXX

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump silences Voice of America – end of a propaganda machine or void for China and Russia to fill?

    ANALYSIS: By Valerie A. Cooper, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Of all the contradictions and ironies of Donald Trump’s second presidency so far, perhaps the most surprising has been his shutting down the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) for being “radical propaganda”.

    Critics have long accused the agency — and its affiliated outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia — of being a propaganda arm of US foreign policy.

    But to the current president, the USAGM has become a promoter of “anti-American ideas” and agendas — including allegedly suppressing stories critical of Iran, sympathetically covering the issue of “white privilege” and bowing to pressure from China.

    Propaganda is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The Moscow Times reported Russian officials were elated by the demise of the “purely propagandistic” outlets, while China’s Global Times celebrated the closure of a “lie factory”.

    Meanwhile, the European Commission hailed USAGM outlets as a “beacon of truth, democracy and hope”. All of which might have left the average person understandably confused: Voice of America? Wasn’t that the US propaganda outlet from World War II?

    Well, yes. But the reality of USAGM and similar state-sponsored global media outlets is more complex — as are the implications of the US agency’s demise.

    Public service or state propaganda?
     The USAGM is one of several international public service media outlets based in Western democracies. Others include Australia’s ABC International, the BBC World Service, CBC/Radio-Canada, France Médias Monde, NHK-World Japan, Deutsche Welle in Germany and SRG SSR in Switzerland.

    Part of the Public Media Alliance, they are similar to national public service media, largely funded by taxpayers to uphold democratic ideals of universal access to news and information.

    Unlike national public media, however, they might not be consumed — or even known — by domestic audiences. Rather, they typically provide news to countries without reliable independent media due to censorship or state-run media monopolies.

    The USAGM, for example, provides news in 63 languages to more than 100 countries. It has been credited with bringing attention to issues such as protests against covid-19 lockdowns in China and women’s struggles for equal rights in Iran.

    On the other hand, the independence of USAGM outlets has been questioned often, particularly as they are required to share government-mandated editorials.

    Voice of America has been criticised for its focus on perceived ideological adversaries such as Russia and Iran. And my own research has found it perpetuates stereotypes and the neglect of African nations in its news coverage.

    Leaving a void
     Ultimately, these global media outlets wouldn’t exist if there weren’t benefits for the governments that fund them. Sharing stories and perspectives that support or promote certain values and policies is an effective form of “public diplomacy”.

    Yet these international media outlets differ from state-controlled media models because of editorial systems that protect them from government interference.

    The Voice of America’s “firewall”, for instance, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news”. Such protections allow journalists to report on their own governments more objectively.

    In contrast, outlets such as China Media Group (CMG), RT from Russia, and PressTV from Iran also reach a global audience in a range of languages. But they do this through direct government involvement.

    CMG subsidiary CCTV+, for example, states it is “committed to telling China’s story to the rest of the world”.

    Though RT states it is an autonomous media outlet, research has found the Russian government oversees hiring editors, imposing narrative angles, and rejecting stories.

    A Voice of America staffer protests outside the Washington DC offices on March 17, 2025, after employees were placed on administrative leave. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation

    Other voices get louder
     The biggest concern for Western democracies is that these other state-run media outlets will fill the void the USAGM leaves behind — including in the Pacific.

    Russia, China and Iran are increasing funding for their state-run news outlets, with China having spent more than US$6.6 billion over 13 years on its global media outlets. China Media Group is already one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, providing news content to more than 130 countries in 44 languages.

    And China has already filled media gaps left by Western democracies: after the ABC stopped broadcasting Radio Australia in the Pacific, China Radio International took over its frequencies.

    Worryingly, the differences between outlets such as Voice of America and more overtly state-run outlets aren’t immediately clear to audiences, as government ownership isn’t advertised.

    An Australian senator even had to apologise recently after speaking with PressTV, saying she didn’t know the news outlet was affiliated with the Iranian government, or that it had been sanctioned in Australia.

    Switched off
     Trump’s move to dismantle the USAGM doesn’t come as a complete surprise, however. As the authors of Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America described, the first Trump administration failed in its attempts to remove the firewall and install loyalists.

    This perhaps explains why Trump has resorted to more drastic measures this time. And, as with many of the current administration’s legally dubious actions, there has been resistance.

    The American Foreign Service Association says it will challenge the dismantling of the USAGM, while the Czech Republic is seeking EU support to keep Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on the air.

    But for many of the agency’s journalists, contractors, broadcasting partners and audiences, it may be too late. Last week, The New York Times reported some Voice of America broadcasts had already been replaced by music.

    Dr Valerie A. Cooper is lecturer in media and communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Protecting salmon farming at the expense of the environment – another step backwards for Australia’s nature laws

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phillipa C. McCormack, Future Making Fellow, Environment Institute, University of Adelaide

    A bill introduced to parliament this week, if passed, would limit the government’s power to reconsider certain environment approvals when an activity is harming the environment.

    It fulfils Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s promise last month to introduce new laws to allow salmon farming to continue in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour. This salmon farming is currently mooted for reconsideration.

    There’s no doubt Australia’s nature laws need reform. The latest review found “Australians do not trust that the EPBC Act is delivering for the environment, for business or for the community”.

    But stopping the government from reconsidering a past decision is no way to fix these flaws. Reconsidering decisions is necessary if new evidence shows the activity is causing much more harm to nature, or a different kind of harm, than anticipated.

    Salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour

    Salmon have been farmed in Macquarie Harbour for almost 40 years, but activity has increased over the past decade.

    In 2012, Tasmania’s Department of Primary Industries sought approval to expand farming in the harbour, despite possible impacts on threatened species and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

    But then-Environment Minister, Tony Bourke, declared no further consideration was needed and the action could proceed, because the proposal was not
    “a controlled action”. Under the Act, a controlled action is any activity likely to impact on a matter of national environmental significance, such as a threatened species. A project or development deemed a controlled action then requires approval from the environment minister.

    However, Bourke’s decision was subject to conditions – most importantly, to ensure no significant impacts to the Maugean skate.

    In late 2023, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek received a series of requests to reconsider Bourke’s 2012 decision.

    New evidence comes to light

    The power to request a reconsideration is available to anyone. If substantial new information justifies it, the minister may revoke the original decision and make a new one.

    In the Macquarie Harbour case, these reconsideration requests relied on scientific studies completed after 2012. One highlighted the skate’s vulnerability to changing water conditions. Another released last month showed a strong correlation between more intense salmon farming and increased extinction risk for the skate.

    Plibersek has not made a decision yet. However, documents her office released under Freedom of Information laws show new evidence. This evidence supports a declaration that salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour should be reconsidered. That could trigger a full review of salmon farming in the Harbour.

    However, the bill Labor has introduced would strip the minister’s powers to reconsider the earlier decision.

    Prime minister promises law change to protect salmon farms, February 2025 (ABC News)

    What does the new bill propose?

    On Monday a government spokesperson said:

    This bill is very specific – it’s a minor change, with extremely strict criteria – focused on giving Tasmanian workers certainty while government investments protect the Maugean Skate. The existing laws apply to everything else, including all new proposals for coal, gas, and land clearing.

    But we disagree. The bill describes the circumstances in which the minister can reconsider a decision. These are cases (such as Macquarie Harbour) where an activity is allowed to proceed without full assessment and approval, in a “particular manner”. The “particular manner” must include complying with a state or territory management arrangement. For example, the salmon farmers have to comply with a Tasmanian government plan for Macquarie Harbour. Finally, these activities must be currently underway, and ongoing in that way, for at least five years.

    It is not uncommon for “particular manner” decisions to require compliance with state or territory management arrangements. So the new legislation will catch more than just the Macquarie Harbour project in the “net”.

    For instance, our quick search of the EPBC Act portal revealed a similar particular manner decision. This means that, after five years of operation, this second decision will also be immune from challenge.

    There would be more where that came from. The bill will not only protect salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour.

    What’s more, reconsideration powers have been used sparingly – there seems no reason to limit their use further. A search of the EPBC Act public portal reveals only 52 reconsideration requests since the Act began, averaging just two a year. Many of these requests were made by proponents, disgruntled with a “controlled action” decision made in relation to their own projects.

    One bad bill after another

    This may sound familiar, because Labor’s bill is similar to Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck’s private bill proposed in December, which also concerned protecting salmon farming jobs in Macquarie Harbour.

    The Senate’s Environment and Communications Legislation Committee made a single recommendation on that bill: that it not be passed.

    The majority report (from Labor, Greens and Independent senators) provided sensible reasons for recommending the bill be abandoned. It noted the power to request a reconsideration already has “appropriate safeguards”.

    Furthermore, these “safeguards strike an appropriate balance by providing industry with confidence and certainty that a decision made will not be easily reversed, while allowing decisions to be reconsidered should new and significant information relating to the decision arise”.

    Just four months later, these remain compelling reasons for maintaining the power to reconsider decisions.

    We don’t have time to go backwards

    This amendment will not achieve the comprehensive reforms the EPBC Act needs. In fact, it will actively undermine these goals. It has been rushed through after years of effort to improve nature laws, on the eve of an election, in a marginal electorate, and has been put to Parliament on the day of a budget lockup.

    Despite removing this scrutiny, the bill is unlikely to resolve the controversy in Macquarie Harbour.



    Read more:
    Labor’s dumping of Australia’s new nature laws means the environment is shaping as a key 2025 election issue

    Phillipa McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Environmental Science Program, Natural Hazards Research Australia, Green Adelaide and the ACT Government. She is a member of the National Environmental Law Association and an affiliated member of the Centre for Marine Socioecology.

    Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, and the National Environmental Science Program. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

    – ref. Protecting salmon farming at the expense of the environment – another step backwards for Australia’s nature laws – https://theconversation.com/protecting-salmon-farming-at-the-expense-of-the-environment-another-step-backwards-for-australias-nature-laws-252814

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A $33 billion vote-grabber or real relief? Examining the Albanese government’s big housing pledge

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

    Man As Thep/Shutterstock

    The Australian housing market is in crisis: soaring prices, increasing rental stress, declining home ownership rates and a growing number of people experiencing homelessness.

    In response, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a $33 billion housing investment plan as part of his government’s latest budget.



    Read more:
    At a glance: the 2025 federal budget

    This is a central plank of Labor’s re-election pitch, aimed at showing housing commitment by:

    Making it easier to buy, better to rent, and building more homes faster.

    What are the key features of the plan?

    The plan includes two headline measures aimed at boosting housing supply and helping buyers:

    1-Expanding ‘Help to Buy’ for first-home buyers:

    The Help to Buy program provides shared-equity loans to first-time homebuyers so they can purchase properties with smaller deposits. Under this program, the government buys a portion of the property to lower the required mortgage amount for buyers.

    Under the initial terms of the scheme, the Commonwealth offered up to 30% of the price for existing homes and 40% for new constructions, while restricting eligibility to households within specific income and property value ranges.

    Now, the Albanese government has raised cap levels to enable more people to become eligible. The income ceiling for single buyers will increase from $90,000 to $100,000, while the maximum income limit for couples and single parents will rise from $120,000 to $160,000.

    These higher caps mean more than five million Australian properties would fall under the scheme’s scope, significantly expanding buyers’ choice.

    2-Investing in prefabricated and modular homes:

    In November 2024, the Albanese government announced a $900 million productivity fund to reward states and territories that boost housing supply by removing barriers to prefab and modular construction.

    And now, the Albanese government is budgeting another $54 million for the advanced manufacturing of prefab and modular housing industry. This includes $5 million to create a national certification system to streamline approvals and eliminate red tape.

    This aims to speed up home construction through off-site manufacturing technologies, which produce components in factories before assembling them on-site.

    Minister for Industry and Science Ed Husic claims these homes can be finished in half the time of conventional construction. Even a 20–30% time saving would be significant.

    These buildings are also more energy efficient, more resilient and cheaper.

    A crane lifts part of a modular home into place.
    benik.at/Shutterstock

    Can these measures fix the problem?

    The big picture problem is, Australia has simply not been building enough homes for its growing population.

    According to the Urban Development Institute of Australia’s State of the Land Report 2025, the federal government will fail (by 400,000 dwellings) to meet its target of constructing 1.2 million new homes by 2029.

    Prefab building methods make up just 8% of new housing developments in Australia.

    Some countries use it much more: Sweden boasts more than 100 years of prefab construction experience, where more than 80% of homes are produced in factories and then assembled at their destinations.

    Modular housing can be described as a promising step forward. But while they offer potential improvements in speed and cost efficiency, it cannot solve the massive housing deficit on its own without structural policy reforms in the near future.

    What about the Help to Buy scheme?

    Shared-equity loans tackle a different side of the problem: affordability for buyers.

    Experts describe Help to Buy as a “modest” but useful “piece of the puzzle” in solving the housing crisis.

    While its impact on general house prices and universal housing affordability is minimal, policymakers worry that programs like these unintentionally push up prices by boosting demand.

    Federal v state roles

    Housing policy in Australia is a shared responsibility.

    State governments control planning, zoning and most of the levers that determine how quickly homes can be approved and built (such as releasing land for development or approving apartment projects).

    The federal government mainly controls funding and high-level programs, so the success of the Albanese government’s plan will depend a lot on cooperation with the states and territories.

    However, there’s some inherent tension here: Canberra can set targets and provide incentives (funding), but it can’t directly build houses or force local councils to approve projects faster.

    That’s one reason behind the prefab certification idea: it removes one potential regulatory hurdle at a national level.

    Political timing

    The timing of this housing plan announcement is no coincidence.

    Australia will have a federal election by May 2025. Most voters will likely consider housing costs and cost-of-living to be primary issues.

    The expansion of Help to Buy enables Labor to target first-home buyers, which may be important in the election.

    The new housing plan is ambitious in scope and certainly a welcome effort to turn the tide on housing affordability.

    However, renters and prospective buyers are unlikely to experience quick benefits from these housing initiatives, as it will require sustained action and cooperation well beyond the upcoming election cycle.

    The Help to Buy program will begin later in 2025, and the positive effects of investing in prefabricated/modular housing will require a period of time before they become apparent.

    It is unclear whether these measures will effectively persuade voters and produce substantial improvements.

    Dr. Ehsan Noroozinejad has received funding from both national and international organisations to support research addressing housing and climate crises. His most recent funding on integrated housing and climate policy comes from the James Martin Institute for Public Policy.

    – ref. A $33 billion vote-grabber or real relief? Examining the Albanese government’s big housing pledge – https://theconversation.com/a-33-billion-vote-grabber-or-real-relief-examining-the-albanese-governments-big-housing-pledge-252915

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Guterres urges Caribbean leaders to keep pushing for peace, climate action

    Source: United Nations 2-b

    Peace and Security

    In an address on Wednesday to Caribbean leaders meeting in Barbados, UN Secretary-General António Guterres announced a potential plan to support an “effective force” in Haiti as armed gangs continue to terrorize the population. 

    Mr. Guterres was speaking during the opening of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Heads of Government Meeting in the capital Bridgetown, where he called for unity to achieve progress in peace and security, climate and sustainable development.

    “A unified Caribbean is an unstoppable force,” he said. “I urge you to keep using that power to push the world to deliver on its promises.”

    ‘Trouble in paradise’

    The Secretary-General noted that the region’s “exquisite beauty is famed the world over, but there is trouble in paradise.”

    He told leaders that “wave after wave of crisis is pounding your people and your islands – with no time to catch your breath before the next disaster strikes.”

    Caribbean countries are experiencing uncertainty fuelled by geopolitical tensions, along with the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, soaring debt and interest rates, and a surge in the cost of living. 

    Global solutions exist

    These are all happening “amidst a deadly swell of climate disasters – ripping development gains to shreds, and blowing holes through your national budgets,” and as countries “remain locked-out of many international institutions – one of the many legacies of colonialism today.”

    The UN chief insisted that “the cure for these ills is global,” and the world needs to deliver on hard-won global commitments to address the immense challenges the international community is facing.

    He listed three key areas “where, together, we must drive progress.” 

    Peace in Haiti

    Mr. Guterres called for unity for peace and security, “particularly to address the appalling situation in Haiti – where gangs are inflicting intolerable suffering on a desperate and frightened people.”

    He said CARICOM and its Eminent Persons Group have provided invaluable support in this regard. 

    “We must keep working for a political process – owned and led by the Haitians – that restores democratic institutions through elections,” he said.

    Security and stability

    A Security Council-backed Multinational Security Support Mission is currently on the ground to assist the Haitian National Police.

    The Secretary-General said he will soon report to the Council on the situation in the country, including proposals on the role the UN can play to both support stability and security, and address the root causes of the crisis.

    He intends to present a proposal similar to the one for Somalia, in which the UN assumes responsibility for the structural and logistical expenditures necessary to put the force in place. Salaries are paid through a trust fund that already exists.

    “If the Security Council will accept this proposal, we will have the conditions to finally have an effective force to defeat the gangs in Haiti and create the conditions for democracy to thrive,” he said, drawing applause.

    © WFP/Fedel Mansour

    Hurricane Beryl last July caused devastation on Union Island in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

    Climate crisis opportunity

    His second point – unity on the climate crisis – underlined “a deplorable injustice” as Caribbean countries “have done next to nothing” to create it. Moreover, they have “fought tooth and nail for the global commitment to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees.”

    Mr. Guterres said countries must deliver new national climate plans ahead of the COP30 UN climate conference later this year.  The plans must align with the 1.5 goal, with the G20 group of industrial nations leading the way.

    “This is a chance for the world to get a grip on emissions,” he said. “And it’s a chance for the Caribbean to seize the benefits of clean power, to tap your vast renewables potential, and to turn your back on costly fossil fuel imports.”

    As finance is required, he underscored the need for confidence that the $1.3 trillion agreed at the previous COP will be mobilized. Developed countries also must honour their promises on adaptation finance and make meaningful contributions to the new Loss and Damage Fund.

    “When the Fund was created, the pledges made were equivalent to the new contract for just one baseball player in New York City,” he remarked.

    Finance for sustainable development

    Meanwhile, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) “are starved of adequate finance, as debt servicing soaks-up funds, and international financial institutions remain underpowered.”

    The Secretary-General said Caribbean countries have been at the forefront of the fight for change, pioneering bold and creative solutions.  He said the Pact for the Future, together with the Bridgetown Initiative, marks significant progress.

    Mr. Guterres thanked Caribbean leaders for supporting the Pact, which UN Member States adopted last year. 

    Key deliverables include support for an SDG Stimulus of $500 billion annually and commitment to reform international financial institutions to allow greater participation by developing countries. 

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin Meets With Illinois Air Traffic Controllers

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

    March 25, 2025

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) today met with Illinois representatives from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), including President of the Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), Toby Hauck.  During their meeting, Durbin and the NATCA members touched on the industry’s critical staffing shortage and spoke about steps to recruit, train, and retain air traffic controllers.  The leaders also discussed replacing outdated equipment and improving mental health support for air traffic controllers who often work 10 hour days, six days a week.

    “When we board a flight, we expect to arrive safely at our destination.  But that’s not possible without the critical work of our air traffic controllers, who are strained by the industry’s staffing shortage,” said Durbin.  “Today, I met with Illinois-based air traffic controllers and Toby Hauck, President of the Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center, to discuss how the federal government can better support them.”

    Photos of the meeting are available here.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –