Source: Break Free From Plastic

On August 9, 2026, the Chair of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution Julio Cordano shared an informal reference document titled “Aid to Negotiations” ahead of the anticipated resumption of negotiations for an international legally binding agreement to end plastic pollution.

This document was a culmination of all the informal talks that happened after electing the Chair in INC 5.3 in Geneva, Switzerland in February 2026. The document is meant to “aid” the discussions in the next informal heads of delegation meeting that is set to take place in Bangkok on September 27-30, 2026.

In his explanatory note, Cordano said that the document was informed by past texts and discussions that happened in previous INCs, but critics are quick to notice that most of the ambitious treaty elements that garnered the support of more than a hundred Member States in past discussions were missing from the recently released document.

The Chair said that he hopes that this document will help to “begin identifying possible bridging approaches and solutions” but many are wary that the current text is bound to bridge the weakest and most watered down measures without articles pertaining to continued plastic production and chemicals in plastics.

Melissa Aguayo, Co-Coordinator for Break Free From Plastic, calls on all Member States to bring back the important provisions, terms, and key measures from previous texts that obligate States to act towards ending plastic pollution. “The text cannot be accepted as is,” said Aguayo. “The process is raising serious concerns about legitimacy and trust. This document emerged from closed-door sessions that once again excluded civil society, while critical issues were kept off the formal agenda, undermining the integrity of the process.”

Break Free From Plastic members respond to the Chair’s Aid to Negotiations:

Eskedar Awgichew Ergete, Executive Director, Eco Justice Ethiopia, said:

“The Chair’s Aid to Negotiations falls short of the justice centered ambition that governments agreed to in UNEA 5/14. A treaty that treats upstream obligations as optional, sidelines independent science, and weakens global decision making cannot end plastic pollution. It only protects the interests of those who profit from it. For African countries and frontline workers who live with the daily realities of waste colonialism, this text is not balanced; it is inequitable. We need a treaty that confronts plastic production, embeds worker centered just transition, and upholds the rights of communities most affected. Anything less is a retreat from the mandate and a failure of global responsibility.”

Nyebon Faustin, Executive Director of Appui aux Initiatives Communautaires pour l’Environnement Durable (AICED), said:

“Plastic pollution is, above all, a matter of human health and survival. Even before contaminating our ecosystems, plastic and the toxic substances associated with it affect our health–including that of unborn children–thereby compromising their development and humanity’s future. The Chair of the INC, has the power to turn the tide by setting the foundations for countries to take action towards an ambitious, legally binding global treaty based on an approach that covers the entire lifecycle of plastic, from production to end-of-life.”

Salisa Traipipitsiriwat, Senior Campaigner and Southeast Asia Plastics Project Manager at Environmental Justice Foundation, said:

“The Chair’s Aid to Negotiations does not reflect the outcome ambitious countries have worked for. Its provisions leave the pace and action against plastic pollution largely where the world already stands today, without the binding commitments that would justify negotiating a legally binding instrument. It is not possible to address plastic pollution while leaving production out of the conversation. Upstream measures to reduce plastic at the production stage must be part of any credible outcome. This is a moment for high-ambition member states to hold firm, make their voices heard, and demand a text that truly matches the urgency of this crisis.”

Muriel Papin, Executive Director, No Plastic in my Sea, said:

“This text, which was intended to facilitate future negotiations, is extremely disappointing and falls short of the ambition set out in the original mandate. It is a war of attrition, which favours the lowest common denominator, and one which the ambitious countries – despite being in the majority – are now facing.”

Fabienne McLellan, Managing Director of OceanCare, said:

“This treaty is meant to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. What the Ocean needs most from this treaty-upstream measures to prevent plastic getting into the environment in the first place-is what it is least likely to get. Member States need to stand by their previous positions and refuse to settle for this low-ambition document. They must demand that their ambitious proposals be reintroduced and reflected in the text going forward.” [see interview with The Guardian]

Christina Dixon, Ocean Campaign Lead of Environmental Investigation Agency, said:

“One year after countries rejected a weak outcome in Geneva, they are now being presented with much the same level of ambition, repackaged as progress. Key measures that could tackle the problem at its source remain diluted, deferred or dropped altogether and new proposals remain totally absent. Ultimately, the world needs a treaty that bends the curve on plastic production and pollution, not one that bends to the lowest common denominator.” [see full statement]

David Azoulay, Director of Environmental Health at the Center for International Environmental Law, said:

“The Chair called this draft a ‘no surprises’ document, and on that count, it delivers. The text is the lowest common denominator. And it is indeed no surprise that a text developed behind closed doors, following a meeting where production, chemicals, and decision-making were kept off the formal agenda, and observers were kept out of the room, fails to reflect the science on what it will take to address the plastics crisis…” [see full statement]

About BFFP — #BreakFreeFromPlastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 2,700 organizations and 11,000 individual supporters worldwide have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the values of environmental protection and social justice and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain – from extraction to disposal – focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions. www.breakfreefromplastic.org.

MIL OSI

Source: Workers First Union

Retail workers in understaffed stores are more than twice as likely to have experienced a safety incident as those in well-staffed stores, a major new survey of 2,403 retail workers has found.

The survey, released today by Workers First Union and one of the largest of retail workers conducted in Aotearoa, points to a single underlying cause running through nearly every finding: understaffing. Workers in stores that are always understaffed reported a safety incident at more than twice the rate of those in well-staffed stores (70% vs 30%) and were nearly five times less likely to always feel safe at work (11% vs 52%).

Read the full report.

More broadly, 59% of all respondents have experienced customer abuse or harassment in the last two years, and only 21% say they always feel safe at work.

Asked what single measure would most improve their safety, the top answer by far was simply more staff (38%) – ranking well ahead of cameras, guards, or any other specific security measure.

“Understaffing is the common driver of violence and abuse of retail workers, of feeling unsafe in stores, and of workers wanting to quit their retail jobs,” said Rudd Hughes, Workers First Deputy Secretary.

“What this shows is that understaffing is a health and safety issue and not some kind of smart business decision for an employer who’s looking to cut costs.”

“Employers must be held accountable for understaffing their stores and putting workers’ safety at risk to save money.”

Steve Day, a Nelson retail worker, was violently assaulted by a stranger in January 2025 while stocking shelves in a supermarket. His attacker, who the judge later described as committing an act of “persistent violence”, was sentenced to prison, and Mr Day said he still struggles with what happened.

“It was sheer luck for me that our night-fill staff were nearby, including one who happened to be a pub bouncer – he stepped in, or it could have been even worse,” said Mr Day.

“We were regular 111 callers for violent or disorderly customers. With limited Police resources to dispatch, you need good staffing levels to protect retail workers.”

“We don’t even need to intervene – just having more staff present and watching can make it much less likely that people kick off in the store.”

“Colleagues leave their jobs because of understaffing. It makes the job more stressful as well as increasing the amount of conflict and confrontation with customers.”

Workers First Union is calling on retailers to treat safe staffing levels as a health and safety issue, not a discretionary cost. Mr Hughes suggested several solutions to the persistent problem of dangerous staffing levels and abuse and violence against retail workers:

• Increased prosecutions of employers who risk staff safety by perpetually understaffing stores.
• Increased powers for workers to strike on health and safety grounds (described in more detail in Workers First’s ‘Take the Power Back’ paper).
• Increased responsibility and scope for Worksafe to investigate understaffing as a health and safety issue in workplaces.
• Requiring employers to provide additional EAP and medical costs for retail workers who experience assault and abuse in their workplace.

Mr Hughes said a sectoral bargaining mechanism like the Fair Pay Agreement (FPA) framework, was also key to setting minimum expectations and standards across the industry.

“Retail workers are not adequately paid for the risks they have to shoulder in stores,” said Mr Hughes.

“We depend on them as providers of an essential service, but the vast majority do not earn a living wage and are living week-to-week during a cost-of-living crisis. This has to change.”

“Anyone can be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time – but that should never be someone’s workplace.”

The survey also found:

• 43% of workers have been verbally abused or assaulted by a customer in the last two years, and 27% have had to confront a shoplifter.
• Only 57% of workers who experienced a safety incident reported it to their employer, and of those who did, only 49% were satisfied with how it was handled.
• Among workers who experienced a safety-related problem, 61% felt stressed or anxious as a result, and 35% said they dreaded coming to work.
• 61% of respondents said things had gotten worse for retail workers over the last year, and 53% expect things to get worse again over the next year.

The full report, Understaffed and Under Threat: Retail Staff Safety Survey 2026, is available at: https://workersfirst.nz/retail-staffing-2026

MIL OSI

The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

Source: Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission

Last updated: 03 July 2026

Commission calls for withdrawal of the Move-on Orders Bill, warning it risks criminalising those with greatest need.

Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission is calling on the Government to withdraw the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill, warning it risks criminalising poverty and homelessness rather than improving safety and addressing the root causes of harm in our communities.

In its submission to the Justice Select Committee on 2 July, the Commission believes the Bill gets the problem wrong and as a result, gets the solution wrong. The Bill risks further victimising and negatively impacting people for simply trying to survive sleeping rough, begging, or dealing with health and housing problems they need help addressing.

The Bill also risks increasing police contact, displacement and criminalisation for people already experiencing significant hardship, while doing little to address genuinely harmful or threatening behaviour for which legal tools already exist.

“This Bill doesn’t make anyone safer, it just makes homelessness and poverty harder to see,” says Prudence Walker, Disability Rights Commissioner.

“People don’t sleep on our streets or ask strangers for money because our public spaces are too relaxed. They’re there because housing, health care, addiction support and whānau support have run out. Moving them on doesn’t fix any of that — it just moves the problem down the road.”

The Commission is especially concerned that move-on orders could be issued to children as young as 14.

“A 14-year-old sleeping rough needs care and a safe place to stay — not a move-on order,” says Walker. “This Bill would let us push children further away from the help they need, at exactly the moment they need it most.”

The Commission’s submission also raises concerns under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, noting that Māori are disproportionately affected by severe housing deprivation, and that the Crown has existing obligations to actively protect and support Māori communities.

The Bill is also likely to disproportionately impact others already experiencing disadvantage, including disabled people, Pacific peoples, Rainbow communities, women and children, particularly where poverty, homelessness, family violence, addiction, mental distress or unmet disability support needs intersect.

The Commission recommends the Bill not proceed, and that the Government should instead take a human rights and evidence-based approach to address the upstream conditions that lead to homelessness, addiction and mental health directly. This should be done through investment in stable housing, Housing First approaches, kaupapa Māori housing, accessible health and addiction services, and whānau-centred support.

As a country, preventing poverty and homelessness is how we create a positive shared future for all of us. Lasting safety comes from decent homes, adequate incomes, accessible and culturally safe services, and whānau-centred support and prevention.

Chief Commissioner, Dr Stephen Rainbow adds:

“We have existing laws that deal with genuinely threatening or disorderly behaviour.

“Workers, businesses, residents and communities deserve safe and welcoming public places, but moving people experiencing hardship out of sight will not make communities safer, nor will it solve the challenges associated with addiction or mental distress that afflict many of those most likely to be impacted by this Bill.

“The real issue is the systemic failure behind the growth of antisocial behaviour, particularly in town centres, that’s impacting safety of workers, shopkeepers, public transport users and shoppers. The visible failure to care for the most vulnerable demands a long, hard look at what’s causing this human tragedy.”

Click here to read the Commission’s full submission.

Source link

MIL OSI

Source: Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission

Last updated: 08 July 2026

Rights & Realities: Remembering 1986 draws on first-hand accounts of the 1985-86 campaign that changed New Zealand law.

Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission today announced the launch of Rights & Realities: Remembering 1986, a new podcast marking the 40th anniversary of the Homosexual Law Reform Act, the law that decriminalised consensual sex between men in New Zealand.

The Act passed its third reading in Parliament on 9 July 1986, following a 16-month nationwide debate that divided the country. It came into force on 8 August, finally ending the threat of prosecution and imprisonment that gay men had lived under.

The Act, introduced as a member’s bill by then-Wellington Central MP Fran Wilde in March 1985, was a major step forward for human rights and justice in Aotearoa New Zealand.

“The passing of the Homosexual Law Reform Act 40 years ago today represented far more than the passing of a piece of legislation – for gay men who lived during that era, the act represented a watershed,” said Dr Stephen Rainbow, Chief Commissioner, Human Rights Commission.

“As New Zealand’s first openly gay Chief Human Rights Commissioner, this anniversary carries particular significance for me,” said Dr Rainbow. “The 40th anniversary is an opportunity to celebrate and reflect on how fortunate we are to live in a democracy that enables minority voices to be heard, protected and promoted.”

Disability Rights Commissioner and Rainbow rights spokesperson, Prudence Walker adds: “This anniversary is a chance to celebrate social progress in Aotearoa New Zealand, while also acknowledging that some Rainbow people don’t yet enjoy the freedoms that generation fought to achieve.”

Rights & Realities: Remembering 1986 is a limited series of five episodes featuring interviews with political and social campaigners, archival audio, and reflection on the impact of the law change for gay men in New Zealand.

For the Human Rights Commission, it’s a chance to reflect on its role in history – including deciding not to recommend to Parliament in 1979 that the Human Rights Act be amended to add ‘sexual orientation’ to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

“Although the Commission supported decriminalising sex between men and strengthening anti-discrimination in the Human Rights Act later in 1985, we wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge we did not provide the leadership expected of us to Rainbow communities at that time,” says Walker.

In the podcast leaders from Rainbow communities guide us through the changing story of sexuality and gender in New Zealand, revisit the moments that shaped the landmark Bill, and honour the courage of those who fought on the frontlines for equality.

Episodes feature:

• Takatāpui scholar and artist Professor Elizabeth Kerekere, and professor of gender studies, Professor Chris Brickell.
• Frontline activists Linda Evans and Gavin Young.
• Fran Wilde, former Labour MP who introduced the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, and Dr Stephen Rainbow, Chief Commissioner, Human Rights Commission.
• Niuean fakafifine and rights activist Phylesha Brown-Acton, and wahine takatāpui, former MP, and marriage equality changemaker, Louisa Wall.
• Disability Rights Commissioner and Commission Rainbow rights spokesperson, Prudence Walker, and legal scholar and advocate Vinod Bal.

Listen to all five episodes now on Spotify and Apple Podcasts

Source link

MIL OSI

New national pavilions, first-time exhibitors spanning wild-capture fisheries to smart aquaculture technology, and a dedicated Seafood Processing Asia showcase the growing appetite for global suppliers to build strategic relationships across Asia

SINGAPORE – Media OutReach Newswire – 4 August 2026 – Seafood Expo Asia/Seafood Processing Asia, organized by Diversified, will take place 2–4 September 2026 at the Sands Expo and Convention Centre in Singapore. Seafood suppliers from around the world and across the supply chain will converge to debut products, build relationships and learn about the industry’s most timely opportunities and challenges. First-time exhibitors and new national and regional pavilions spanning four continents signal the importance of the event in positioning them strategically at the center of Asia’s growing marketplace.

“Seafood Expo Asia is an important platform for the B.C. Dive Fisheries to continue to strengthen our relationships with buyers across Southeast Asia,” said Lawrence Anderson, Director of Pacific Sea Cucumber and Urchin Harvesters Associations (Canada). “It’s an excellent platform to showcase our sustainably harvested premium quality seafood products.”

New Regional and National Pavilions Demonstrating Global Influence

New regional and national pavilions with a growing number of companies will take advantage of the growing demand for seafood across Asia and connect suppliers across the supply chain with buyers in Asia. New pavilions to this year’s event include British Columbia Government (Canada), Jeju Technopark (South Korea), Ministero dell’Agricoltura della Sovranità Alimentare e delle Foreste (MASAF) (Italy) and The French Chamber of Commerce Singapore (France/Singapore).

Returning pavilions include Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (United States), Beijing Yinqicheng International Exhibition Co., Ltd. (China), CAPPMA (China), Dalian Huihetong Exhibition & Display Co., Ltd (China), Food Export USA – Northeast (United States), Hainan Fuchang Exhibition Service Co., Ltd (China), Japan Farmed Fish Export Association (Japan), Kochi Seafood Export Promotion Association (Japan), National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (South Korea), Seafood Industries Association Singapore (Singapore), Southern United States Trade Association – SUSTA (United States) and Valuedshow Management LLC (China).

New Exhibitors From Around the World

Beyond pavilions, first-time exhibitors are arriving from Ecuador, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and China, adding new voices, products and solutions to the exhibit hall. Blumar Asia Ltd, the Asia arm of Chile’s Blumar, will exhibit fresh and frozen Chilean Atlantic salmon alongside its jack mackerel and fishmeal lines. Jeju Technopark, a South Korean government-backed research and innovation center, develops smart land-based aquaculture technology for seaweed and laver cultivation using Jeju Island’s mineral-rich lava seawater. Xinjiang Tianyun Organic Agriculture Co., Ltd. farms salmon and trout at a base fed by glacial water in the Tianshan Mountains and holds BRC Global Food Safety and NSF antibiotic-free product certifications. Foodman Optoelectronic (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. specializes in food safety and quality-control equipment for seafood processing, including X-ray inspection systems that detect fish bones and foreign objects on the line.

From Ocean to Table: A Full Supply Chain Event

Seafood Expo Asia/Seafood Processing Asia is deliberately designed to reflect the full breath of the seafood industry. Alongside the new exhibitors, returning participants include AquaChile, Austral Fisheries, Vinh Hoan Corporation, Marennes Oleron Oyster PGI and Omarsa S.A., among others. Processing equipment and solutions companies — including BAADER, Gucheng Shouan New Material Technology, Guy Cotten and Silikal GmbH — ensure that buyers sourcing automation, packaging, cold chain and aquaculture infrastructure reach their business goals in one location.

The 2026 exhibit hall will feature all types of seafood products — fresh, frozen, canned, preserved, value-added, processed and packaged — alongside solutions spanning processing and automation, aquaculture systems, cold chain infrastructure and advanced packaging. This full-spectrum lineup means that a hotel procurement manager, a supermarket buyer, a processing plant manager and a hatchery operator can each attend the same event and leave with new suppliers and new partnerships.

Business Matchmaking, New Products and Educational Opportunities

Beyond the exhibit hall, the event delivers a full program of business opportunities. Qualified high-volume importers and retail/foodservice buyers can participate in the Business Matchmaking Program, which facilitates structured, pre-scheduled one-on-one meetings with exhibiting suppliers. The Seafood Excellence Asia Awards, the expo’s product competition, celebrates the best new seafood products on the market, giving innovative suppliers direct visibility with buyers and press at an evening reception.

An educational conference will bring together industry leaders to address seafood consumption trends and market outlook, AI in the supply chain, sustainability certification, RAS fish farming, processing trends across Asia and more. Rounding out the experience, live culinary demonstrations and open product tastings will bring seafood to life on the event floor, connecting buyers directly with the products they are sourcing.

Learn More & Register to Attend

Seafood industry professionals can learn more about Seafood Expo Asia/Seafood Processing Asia, find information on the conference program and other special events, and register to attend for free by visiting www.seafoodexpo.com/asia.

To register as media/press, please visit the press center.

Hashtag: #SEASIA26

The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

About Seafood Expo Asia/Seafood Processing Asia

About Diversified

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

Highlights 

• Proposed U.S. redomiciliation: IperionX intends to redomicile its ultimate parent company to Texas, subject to shareholder, court, regulatory and other customary approvals, to align the Company’s legal and capital-markets structure with its integrated U.S. manufacturing, critical minerals and technology operations.
• Simplified Nasdaq structure: Subject to final structuring and exchange approvals, common stock in the new U.S. parent is expected to be listed directly on Nasdaq, replacing IperionX’s existing ADS structure.
• Continuity of operations and strategy: The proposed redomiciliation is not expected to change IperionX’s underlying assets, operations or strategic priorities.
• Building a fully American titanium supply chain: IperionX is developing an integrated U.S. platform extending from domestic titanium minerals and recycled titanium feedstocks through low-cost titanium metal production to advanced manufactured products and components.
• Board strengthened for industrial scale-up: Michael J. Loparco, an accomplished advanced-manufacturing, technology and global supply-chain executive, has been appointed as an independent non-executive director, effective August 3, 2026.

SOUTH BOSTON, Va., Aug. 03, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — IperionX Limited (IperionX) (NASDAQ: IPX, ASX: IPX) is pleased to announce two aligned strategic actions to support its next phase of growth as an American titanium metal and critical materials business.

IperionX intends to pursue a redomiciliation to the United States through the establishment of a Texas-incorporated ultimate parent company. The Company has also appointed Mr. Michael J. Loparco, an experienced advanced-manufacturing, industrial technology and global supply-chain executive, as an independent non-executive director, effective August 3, 2026.

Together, these initiatives are intended to align IperionX’s corporate structure, capital-markets framework and Board capabilities with the Company’s evolution into a fully integrated American titanium and critical materials company.

IperionX is developing a domestic titanium supply chain designed to extend from titanium minerals and recycled feedstocks through titanium metal production to advanced manufactured products for defense and other strategically important U.S. industries.

The Company’s U.S. operating platform comprises:

• the integrated Atlas-Titan critical minerals platform in Tennessee;
• titanium metal production and advanced manufacturing in Virginia; and
• titanium technology research and development in Utah.

The proposed redomiciliation is reflective of the majority of IperionX’s customers, strategic relationships and government-supported programs being based in the United States. 

Appointment of Mr. Michael J. Loparco as Non-Executive Director

IperionX has appointed Mr. Michael J. Loparco as an independent non-executive director, effective August 3, 2026.

Mr. Loparco is a highly accomplished executive with more than 25 years of leadership experience across advanced manufacturing, industrial technology, automation, global supply chains, corporate transactions and public-company governance.

He currently serves as Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of OrcaWorcs.ai, an AI-native operating platform focused on workflow orchestration and compliance across legal, financial services and industrial markets.

Mr. Loparco previously served as Chief Executive Officer of Symbotic Inc. (NASDAQ: SYM), where he led the company through its 2022 public listing.

Prior to Symbotic, Mr. Loparco spent more than two decades at Jabil Inc., one of the world’s leading manufacturing services companies. During his time at Jabil, he held a series of senior leadership roles, including Chief Executive Officer of Jabil Electronics Manufacturing Services and Executive Vice President, with responsibility for global manufacturing, supply-chain and technology operations across 25 countries.

Earlier in his career, Mr. Loparco practiced as a corporate attorney with Holland & Knight LLP. He currently serves on the Board of Sanmina Corporation (NASDAQ: SANM) and has previous board experience with established public companies and newly listed businesses. Mr. Loparco holds a Bachelor of Arts in International Business from Eckerd College and a Juris Doctor, cum laude, from Stetson University College of Law. 

Mr. Loparco said:

“IperionX has assembled a leading combination of domestic resource security, proprietary titanium technology and advanced-manufacturing capability within one U.S. platform.

IperionX brings together three capabilities that are rarely found within a single U.S. company: proprietary titanium technologies, an expanding advanced-manufacturing platform and a large-scale domestic critical minerals project. That combination creates a compelling opportunity to build a more resilient, competitive and secure American titanium supply chain.

I look forward to working with the Board and management team as IperionX scales its manufacturing operations, expands commercialization and advances its position as a strategically important supplier to U.S. industry.”

IperionX Executive Chairman, Todd Hannigan, said:

“Michael is an exceptional addition to the IperionX Board. He has extensive experience leading complex manufacturing organizations, scaling advanced technology platforms, managing global supply chains and guiding public companies through periods of significant transformation.

That combination of industrial, technology, commercial and capital-markets experience is directly relevant to IperionX’s next phase as we scale our U.S. manufacturing operations, expand our product capabilities and progress from capacity development into larger-scale commercialization.”

Proposed Domiciliation to the United States

IperionX intends to pursue a redomiciliation under which a newly incorporated Texas corporation would become the ultimate parent company of the IperionX Group. The proposed redomiciliation remains subject to shareholder approval, court approval, regulatory approvals, exchange approvals and other customary conditions.

Subject to final structuring and exchange approvals, IperionX expects the common stock of the new U.S. parent company to be listed directly on Nasdaq, replacing the Company’s existing ADS structure.

The proposed redomiciliation would align IperionX’s legal domicile and capital-markets structure with its:

• principal operating assets in Virginia, Tennessee and Utah;
• U.S.-based workforce and management activities;
• U.S. customers and strategic industrial relationships;
• extensive U.S. Government-supported programs; and
• strategic objective to rebuild secure American titanium and critical materials supply chains.

Against this operating and strategic background, the proposed redomiciliation is intended to complete the alignment of an American operating business with an American legal and capital-markets structure. A U.S. domicile and direct U.S. listed common-stock structure are also intended to provide a simpler and more accessible investment framework for U.S. institutional, sector-specialist and strategic investors.

The proposed structure has the potential to:

• broaden IperionX’s addressable U.S. investor base;
• deepen trading liquidity and price discovery;
• simplify participation by strategic and sector-specialist investors; and
• enhance access to larger and more diverse pools of U.S. growth capital.

The proposed redomiciliation is not expected to change IperionX’s underlying assets, operations or strategic priorities.

IperionX CEO, Taso Arima, said:

“IperionX is an American industrial company in every operational and strategic sense. Our critical mineral platform is in Tennessee, our titanium production and advanced-manufacturing operations are in Virginia, our technology research and development is in Utah, and our customers, strategic relationships and government-supported programs are located in the United States.

The proposed redomiciliation would complete that alignment at the corporate level. It would create a simpler investment structure for U.S. investors and better position IperionX to access the capital, market visibility and strategic relationships required to scale a fully American titanium supply chain.

Importantly, this proposal does not change our underlying business or strategy. It creates a corporate structure that more accurately reflects the American business we have already built and the substantially larger U.S. industrial company we intend to become.”

About IperionX

IperionX is a leading American titanium metal and critical materials company – using patented metal technologies to produce high performance titanium alloys, from titanium minerals or scrap titanium, at lower energy, cost and carbon emissions.

Our Titan critical minerals project is the largest JORC-compliant mineral resource of titanium, rare earth and zircon minerals sands in the United States.

IperionX’s titanium metal and critical minerals are essential for advanced U.S. industries including space, aerospace, defense, consumer electronics, hydrogen, automotive and additive manufacturing.

Forward Looking Statements

Information included in this release constitutes forward-looking statements. Often, but not always, forward looking statements can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as “may”, “will”, “expect”, “intend”, “plan”, “estimate”, “anticipate”, “continue”, and “guidance”, or other similar words and may include, without limitation, statements regarding plans, strategies and objectives of management, anticipated production or construction commencement dates and expected costs or production outputs.

Forward looking statements inherently involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the Company’s actual results, performance, and achievements to differ materially from any future results, performance, or achievements. Relevant factors may include, but are not limited to, changes in commodity prices, foreign exchange fluctuations and general economic conditions, increased costs and demand for production inputs, the speculative nature of exploration and project development, including the risks of obtaining necessary licenses and permits and diminishing quantities or grades of reserves, the Company’s ability to comply with the relevant contractual terms to access the technologies, commercially scale its closed-loop titanium production processes, or protect its intellectual property rights, political and social risks, changes to the regulatory framework within which the Company operates or may in the future operate, environmental conditions including extreme weather conditions, recruitment and retention of personnel, industrial relations issues and litigation.

Forward looking statements are based on the Company and its management’s good faith assumptions relating to the financial, market, regulatory and other relevant environments that will exist and affect the Company’s business and operations in the future. The Company does not give any assurance that the assumptions on which forward looking statements are based will prove to be correct, or that the Company’s business or operations will not be affected in any material manner by these or other factors not foreseen or foreseeable by the Company or management or beyond the Company’s control.

Although the Company attempts and has attempted to identify factors that would cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those disclosed in forward looking statements, there may be other factors that could cause actual results, performance, achievements, or events not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended, and many events are beyond the reasonable control of the Company. Accordingly, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward looking statements. Forward looking statements in these materials speak only at the date of issue. Subject to any continuing obligations under applicable law or any relevant stock exchange listing rules, in providing this information the Company does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any of the forward-looking statements or to advise of any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

Contacts

Anastasios (Taso) Arima, Founder and CEO
Toby Symonds, President
Dominic Allen, Chief Commercial Officer

Investors: investorrelations@iperionx.com
Media: media@iperionx.com

+1 980 237 8900
www.iperionx.com

– Published by The MIL Network

The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

MIL OSI

The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

Source: Workers First Union

The Union Network of Migrants (UNEMIG) is calling on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to sack Winston Peters as Foreign Minister after his racist “go back to your own country” attack on Green MP Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan in Parliament this week, and to confront the wider pattern inside coalition partner New Zealand First that produced it.

Peters made the comment in the House on Wednesday, also telling Xu-Nan to “go back to where you’ve come from” and accusing China of lying “like a flatfish.” NZ First Deputy Leader Shane Jones backed him immediately, saying Xu-Nan “should know his place,” on top of Jones’ earlier description of Indian migration as a “butter chicken tsunami” and his call to “put them on the first plane and send them home.” China’s embassy has lodged a formal complaint with MFAT. Labour, the Greens and National’s own campaign spokesperson have all called the remarks racist or called for Peters to go. Prime Minister Luxon has so far called it “attention-seeking” and attempted to move on.

“For migrant communities, those words are not political banter. They are racist, harmful and deeply hurtful,” said Mikee Santos, UNEMIG coordinator.

“’Go back to your own country’ is one of the oldest racist insults there is, and it tells you that no matter how long you’ve lived here or what you’ve contributed, you’ll still be treated as an outsider.”

“Belonging in Aotearoa doesn’t come with an expiry date or a birthplace test, or a requirement to agree with those in power. Mr Xu-Nan has lived here for three decades and makes a valuable contribution to our Parliament and our politics.”

Mr Santos said the comments come from a political party that is increasingly visible as “the racist party”.

“This isn’t two ministers losing their tempers days apart, it’s New Zealand First’s playbook, and it’s rotten to the core. When language like this comes from the floor of our own Parliament, it gives cover for the same language in workplaces, schools and on the street,” said Mr Santos.

“New Zealand relies on migrant labour to run its hospitals, its building sites and its orchards, then has its Foreign Minister tell migrants to go home the moment they speak up.”

“Frankly, it’s very worrying that a petulant man with no impulse control and declining instincts is the same man negotiating trade behind closed doors with the countries he’s just insulted. That should worry every New Zealander, not only migrant communities.”

“There’s a real irony here too. China’s ambassador has felt the need to comment on how a New Zealand MP was treated by our own Foreign Minister. It’s a terrible look on the world stage.”

“Silence is complicity. If Chris Luxon lets this slide, he must wear it too. New Zealanders didn’t ask for imported Trump-era politics and we don’t want it here.”

“Aotearoa is already a great country. It doesn’t need migrant communities frightened and divided by textbook racism to remain that way.”

UNEMIG calls on the Prime Minister to sack Winston Peters as Foreign Minister, rule out going into coalition with a racist political party, and reaffirm its support and appreciation for what migrant workers bring to Aotearoa New Zealand.

Background information

UNEMIG is a migrant led, non-profit and non-sectarian organisation of migrant workers across the union movement which aims to protect the rights and welfare of migrant workers in New Zealand.

MIL OSI

Source: Billo

California will require large generative AI providers to introduce detection and provenance features, while the European Union will require providers, brands and agencies to mark or label AI-generated content that resembles a real or plausibly real person, object or event. New York separately requires disclosure when an advertisement uses a synthetic performer. Many US ad campaigns fall outside all three laws, so revealing AI use is still a trust decision brands make on their own.

July 31, 2026. Two major AI transparency laws will take effect on August 2, 2026, one in California and one across the European Union.

Although both rules address AI-generated content, they regulate different actors and impose different obligations. California’s initial requirements apply directly to providers of publicly accessible generative AI systems with more than 1 million monthly visitors or users.

In the EU, providers must make AI-generated or manipulated content machine-detectable, while professional deployers, including brands and agencies, must visibly disclose deepfakes. These can depict existing or plausibly existing people, objects, places, entities or events where the content could falsely appear authentic or truthful.

A third law, already in effect in New York since June, covers a performer built entirely from AI who resembles no one real.

Neither rule creates a general requirement for every U.S. brand to tell viewers that an advertisement was made with AI.

That leaves three separate definitions of the same problem, and Donatas Smailys, co-founder and CEO of Billo, doesn’t expect any of them to become the real standard yet.

“Nobody is going to wait for three different laws to tell them what to do,” said Donatas Smailys. “Honestly, I’d like to see broader rules here. Most brands are left guessing whether their ads need a label at all, and that’s not good for anyone. Until lawmakers catch up, platforms like TikTok and Google are already labeling AI content on their own. They’re not waiting for brands to disclose first. Keeping track of three separate rules costs more than just labeling everything. Most brands will end up disclosing by default.”

How the Three Laws Differ

Two of the laws will take effect on August 2, 2026, and a third is already live. In each case, disclosure of AI use is defined differently:

• California binds providers of generative AI systems with 1 million-plus monthly users, not brands or agencies. Providers must offer a free public detection tool, an optional visible disclosure and a mandatory hidden watermark in AI images, video and audio. Violations can result in a $5,000 civil penalty per violation, with each day of continuing non-compliance treated as a separate violation, under the California AI Transparency Act as amended by AB 853.
• The European Union applies Article 50 on the same day. The rule reaches brands directly, but only when AI-generated content copies the likeness of a real person, object, entity or event and it applies to any advertiser whose ads reach EU consumers, regardless of where the company is based. Penalties can reach up to €15 million or 3% of worldwide annual turnover.
• New York, where the law has applied since June 9, covers the opposite case: invented performers who resemble no one. It applies wherever an advertiser’s ads reach New York consumers, regardless of headquarters, and only where the advertiser has actual knowledge. The first violation carries a $1,000 penalty; each one after that is $5,000.

What Consumers Want and What Platforms Are Already Doing

Most consumers want AI use labeled, but most laws don’t require it. A Fractl and Search Engine Land survey of 1,008 US consumers and 150 marketers, conducted in the second quarter of 2026, found 91% want AI-generated video labeled, along with 90% for images, 87% for audio and 84% for written content. Only 20% of organizations say they always disclose AI use but a third of organizations say they never do.

“Six months ago, almost no brand asked us whether a creator used AI in their video,” said Smailys. “Now it comes up in nearly every brief. Brands want to know exactly what was shot on camera and what wasn’t, whether or not a law requires them to ask.”

That shift is starting to show up on platforms too, even without a legal mandate behind it. Google’s My Ad Center now includes a “How this ad was made” panel across Search, YouTube and Discover, with automatic disclosure for ads built using Google’s own generative AI tools.

TikTok was the first video platform to adopt C2PA, an industry content-authenticity standard, in May 2024, and now holds a seat on the standard’s Steering Committee. Using that standard alongside creator-applied labels and invisible watermarking, the platform has labeled more than 3 billion videos as AI-generated. It removed more than 86 million fake accounts in the first quarter of 2026 alone.

What This Means for Brands

For most brands, it comes down to three checks: what tool made the content, whether it resembles a real person, and whether the performer on screen was invented. Billo’s experts recommend four steps to check where a campaign stands before it runs:

• Check whether your ads reach New York. The disclosure requirement follows the audience, not the company’s headquarters. A campaign run entirely outside the state still falls under the law if a New York consumer sees it.
• Ask your agency whether any person on screen is AI-generated. New York’s law applies where the advertiser has actual knowledge.
• If you run campaigns in the EU, check whether the AI content resembles a real person. That resemblance is what triggers Article 50’s disclosure duty for brands.
• Platforms may label AI-generated content independently, but brands should not assume every AI-assisted ad will be detected automatically. TikTok and Google are already disclosing AI use on their own. Brands can choose whether that disclosure comes from them first, or from the platform’s detection system.

“Brands that check where they stand under all three laws now will know exactly what to do,” Smailys added. “The ones that skip that step aren’t avoiding the question. They’re just leaving the answer to someone else, a regulator, a customer, or a platform that labels the ad for them. Either a brand decides when to disclose, or something else decides it first.”

About Billo

Billo is the leading UGC creator marketing platform founded in 2019 that connects brands with creators to produce high-performing social video ads. It is based in San Francisco, CA, and is led by the co-founder and CEO, Donatas Smailys. The platform combines the power of UGC content with a streamlined production process, helping brands increase brand awareness, drive traffic, and boost conversions with authentic creator videos on TikTok, Meta, YouTube, and other platforms.

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

27 July 2026

PSNA has today challenged the Prime Minister to explain why his government has not revealed how New Zealand voted at the International Criminal Court on Friday when ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan was ousted from his role after intense Israeli/US lobbying.

Khan is under attack from Israel and the US because he sought arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Israel’s attacks on Gaza.

Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa spokesperson Rinad Tamimi says Israel and the US intensified their lobbying and diplomatic bullying after an ICC Judicial Panel established to examine the evidence on claims of sexual abuse against Khan declared they were ‘unanimously of the opinion that the factual findings by OIOS (the ICC evidence collecting body) do not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the relevant legal framework’.

Israel and the US rejected the ICC legal ruling and demanded a vote of all member states of the ICC to remove Khan. That vote was held on Friday and Khan removed from office.

“The key question for Mr Luxon is ‘Did we capitulate to Israel/US pressure, or did we stand up for the ICC’s legal processes?” Tamimi says.

“We are not able to make any judgement on the allegations against Mr Khan, but New Zealand should have voted against his expulsion and insisted a proper judicial process be followed”

“Did we?” asks Ms Tamimi.

“In October last year, Foreign Minister Winston Peters issued a formal statement, with Nordic ministers in Stockholm, to ‘reaffirm our unwavering support for the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court’.”

“Did Mr Peters we waver on Friday?”

“New Zealand has already failed numerous times to uphold international law in the face of Israeli/US pressure. We want an assurance the Coalition didn’t throw in the towel again”

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

Four nights of refined coastal gastronomy and creative collaborations will be staged from August 12-15, 2026, featuring highly acclaimed Michelin-starred chefs from Bo.lan, Andō, Maison Dunand and more.

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

MIL OSI

The University of Auckland has established a new Department of Cancer Sciences, bringing together leading researchers, clinicians and educators from across disciplines to create one of New Zealand’s most comprehensive cancer-focused academic communities.

MIL OSI

New Zealand has worse cancer survival rates than Australia – and Associate Professor Ben Lawrence wants to turn that around.

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

Source: Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA)

PSNA has written to the Prime Minister today urging the government to vote against the removal of the International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, and instead insist that proper judicial process be followed regarding allegations made against him.

“This is a pivotal moment for the International Criminal Court and New Zealand must stand up for our values and our support for international law” says PSNA Spokesperson Rinad Tamimi. “We are not making any judgement on the allegations against Mr Khan, but New Zealand must insist a proper judicial process be followed”

When allegations were made against Khan, the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), was asked by the president of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) to gather evidence from the alleged victims.  Between November 2024 and December 2025 more than 5,000 pages of evidence was gathered. The ICC then established a Judicial Panel, comprising three eminent judges selected by the Bureau of the ASP, to analyse the evidence. 

After doing so this Judicial Panel declared they were “unanimously of the opinion that the factual findings by OIOS do not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the relevant legal framework”.

Tamimi says that Now Israel and the US are rejecting the Judicial Panel findings.

“They are blatantly lobbying to remove Karim Khan because he sought arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for ‘war crimes and crimes against humanity’.”

This intensive Israel/US diplomatic bullying has succeeded in having the Judicial Panel findings set aside in favour of a decision to remove Karim Khan being made by the full Assembly of State Parties (ASP) in which New Zealand will vote.

“Karim Khan’s position must be decided through a legal process, not a political process dictated by Israeli/US lobbying” says Tamimi. “New Zealand has already failed numerous times to uphold international law in the face of Israeli/US pressure.”

“They must not throw in the towel again.”

“In October last year, Foreign Minister Winston Peters issued a formal statement, with Nordic ministers in Stockholm, to ‘reaffirm our unwavering support for the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court’.”

“You can’t pick and choose when you will support international law, and when you can disregard it,” says Tamimi. “New Zealand must do the right thing at the ICC this week.”

Rinad Tamimi

National Spokesperson

PSNA

MIL OSI