Transaction expected to close in fourth quarter with combined company to begin trading on the Nasdaq under the ticker “FUEL”

Vertically Integrated business model combines state-of-the-art power generation with oil & gas production to power Bitcoin mining operations

Post-Transaction combined entity expected to have an equity valuation range between US$220M-$343M

SYDNEY, Oct. 15, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Innovation Beverage Group Ltd (“IBG” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: IBG), an innovative developer, manufacturer, and marketer of a growing beverage portfolio of 60 formulations across 13 alcoholic and non-alcoholic brands, today announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement for a reverse triangular merger transaction with BlockFuel Energy Inc., a Texas corporation (“BlockFuel” or “BFE”) engaged in oil and gas exploration and state-of-the-art power generation to support Bitcoin mining operations and high-performance data centers across North America. IBG and BFE expect to close the transaction in the fourth quarter of 2025, subject to customary closing conditions and will trade on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “FUEL”.

Under the terms of the definitive agreement, IBG will merge with BlockFuel through a reverse triangular merger, with a newly formed subsidiary of IBG formed for the transaction merging with and into BFE, with BFE as the surviving entity and becoming a wholly owned subsidiary. When the transaction closes, the owners of BFE are expected to own ordinary shares in IBG representing 90% of the total number of issued and outstanding ordinary shares of IBG on a post-transaction basis, subject to certain equitable adjustments for interim financings. As previously announced, Marshall & Stevens Transaction Advisory Services conducted an independent fairness analysis which concluded that the post-transaction combined company resulting from the merger of IBG and BFE is expected to have an equity valuation range between US$220 million to US$343 million. Shareholders of IBG will own 10% of the combined entity upon closing, equaling an implied post-transaction equity value for IBG in the range of US$22 million to US$34.3 million, compared to a pre-transaction valuation of US$2.9 million to US$6.3 million.

Upon closing of the agreed transaction, Daniel Lanskey, currently President and CEO of BlockFuel and a Director of IBG, will be appointed Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the new combined entity. Sahil Beri, currently Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of IBG, will resign from both positions and will be appointed as President of a newly formed beverage subsidiary.

Sahil Beri, Chief Executive Officer of IBG commented, “The agreement for our reverse merger transaction with BlockFuel Energy marks a pivotal milestone in the IBG story as we work to maximize shareholder value. BlockFuel is uniquely positioned at the forefront of energy innovation and digital asset mining, and we are pleased to provide a public vehicle for BFE to introduce itself to the capital markets. We are separately optimistic about what the future holds for the IBG business as a subsidiary of BlockFuel as we continue to build and grow our award-winning alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage portfolio.”

Daniel Lanskey, Executive Chairman of BlockFuel added, “With today’s announcement finalizing BlockFuel’s entry into the U.S. capital markets via our reverse merger with IBG, we are well placed to capitalize on significant opportunities across the digital asset, energy capture and oil & gas sectors. Integrating IBG’s public market presence with our advanced energy harnessing and Bitcoin mining technologies creates a powerful foundation for long-term value creation. This transaction strengthens our ability to scale, expand market reach, and build a sustainable growth trajectory at the intersection of cleaner energy and blockchain infrastructure.”

If you have a question or would like to schedule a meeting with IBG or BFE management, please contact BFE@KCSA.com.

About Innovation Beverage Group
Innovation Beverage Group is a developer, manufacturer, marketer, exporter, and retailer of a growing beverage portfolio of 60 formulations across 13 alcoholic and non-alcoholic brands for which it owns exclusive manufacturing rights. Focused on premium and super premium brands and market categories where it can disrupt age old brands, IBG’s brands include Australian Bitters, BITTERTALES, Drummerboy Spirits, Twisted Shaker, and more. IBG’s most successful brand to date is Australian Bitters, which is a well-established and favored bitters brand in Australia. Established in 2018, IBG’s headquarters, manufacturing and flavor innovation center are located in Sydney, Australia with a U.S. sales office located in California. For more information visit: https://www.innovationbev.com/

About BlockFuel Energy
BlockFuel Energy is involved in the acquisition, exploration and development of proven oil fields onshore in North America. By turning natural gas at the source, including stranded and flared gas, into a potent resource for the digital era, BlockFuel Energy intends to redefine the energy industry. BlockFuel Energy combines state-of-the-art power generation with oil and gas exploration to power bitcoin mining operations and high-performance data centers. Our vertically integrated concept allows us to use co-location and modular power generation techniques to optimize efficiency and investment returns. Our cutting-edge solutions for energy optimization and extraction will enable us to transform underdeveloped resources into high-margin, scalable, and sustainable revenue streams. For more information visit: https://blockfuelenergy.com/

Forward Looking Statement
This press release contains “forward-looking statements” and “forward-looking information.” These statements include, but are not limited to, statements about the final terms of the potential merger transaction, the structure of such transaction, benefits of the contemplated transaction between IBG and BlockFuel Energy, expected closing conditions and the parties’ ability to complete the transaction, should definitive documentation be reached as well as other statements that are not historical facts. This information and these statements, which can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts, are made as of the date of this press release or as of the date of the effective date of information described in this press release, as applicable.

The forward-looking statements herein relate to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions, or future events or performance (often, but not always, using words or phrases such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “projects,” “estimates,” “envisages,” “assumes,” “intends,” “strategy,” “goals,” “objectives” or variations thereof or stating that certain action events or results “may,” “can,” “could,” “would,” “might,” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved, or the negative of any of these terms and similar expressions) and include, without limitation, statements with respect to projected financial targets that the Company is looking to achieve.

All forward-looking statements are based on current beliefs as well as various assumptions made by and information currently available to the Company’s management team. By their very nature, forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, both general and specific, and risks exist that estimates, forecasts, projections, and other forward-looking statements will not be achieved or that assumptions do not reflect future experience. Such factors include, among others, (1) delays in finalizing definitive documentation for the contemplated transaction, (2) the risk that definitive documentation will reflect different terms than the non-binding terms described herein, (3) the risk of delays in consummating the contemplated transaction, including as a result of required regulatory and stockholder approvals, which may not be obtained on the expected timeline, or at all, (4) the risk of any event, change or other circumstance that could cause the parties to terminate the transaction prior to closing , (5) disruption to the parties’ businesses as a result of the announcement and pendency of the transaction, including potential distraction of management from current plans and operations of IBG or BlockFuel Energy and the ability of IBG and BlockFuel Energy to retain and hire key personnel, (6) reputational risk and the reaction of each company’s customers, suppliers, employees or other business partners to the transaction, (7) the possibility that the transaction may be more expensive to complete than anticipated, including as a result of unexpected factors or events, (8) the outcome of any legal or regulatory proceedings that may be instituted against IBG or BlockFuel Energy related to the transaction or merger agreement, should definitive documentation be executed, (9) the risks associated with third party contracts containing consent and/or other provisions that may be triggered by the contemplated transaction, (10) legislative, regulatory, political, market, economic and other conditions, developments and uncertainties affecting IBG’s or BlockFuel Energy’s businesses; (11) the evolving legal, regulatory and tax regimes under which IBG or BlockFuel Energy operate; (12) any restrictions during the pendency of the contemplated transaction that may impact the parties’ ability to pursue certain business opportunities or strategic transactions; and (13) unpredictability and severity of catastrophic events, including, but not limited to, extreme weather, natural disasters, acts of terrorism or outbreak of war or hostilities. We caution any person reviewing this press release not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements as several important factors could cause the actual outcomes to differ materially from the beliefs, plans, objectives, expectations, anticipations, estimates, assumptions, and intentions expressed in such forward-looking statements. These risk factors may be generally stated as the risk that the assumptions and estimates expressed above do not occur.

The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time by Company or on behalf of the Company except as may be required by law.

Contact:
Innovation Beverage Group Limited
Sahil Beri
CEO
sahil@innovationbev.com
www.innovationbev.com

BlockFuelEnergy Inc.
Daniel Lanskey
President and CEO
dan.lanskey@blockfuelenergy.com
www.blockfuelenergy.com

Investor Relations:
KCSA Strategic Communications
Phil Carlson, Managing Director
BFE@KCSA.com

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/d6543343-3458-4a0b-84b2-aa163fe3f272

– Published by The MIL Network

The Pacific Ocean is far more than a strategic waterway; it is the foundation of our cultures, identities, livelihoods and futures. It sustains our communities, connects our islands, and underpins our sovereignty and self-determination. Yet today, our ocean is increasingly being treated as a theatre for geopolitical competition, where strategic interests are too often prioritised over the rights, wellbeing and aspirations of Pacific peoples.

The Pacific Regional Non-Governmental Organisations (PRNGO) Alliance unequivocally condemns the recent test of a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by the People’s Republic of China across the Pacific Ocean.

We oppose all forms of militarisation and nuclear threats in the Pacific, irrespective of which state is responsible. We cannot condemn missile tests, military build-ups and strategic military expansion undertaken by one power, while remaining silent when comparable actions are undertaken by another.

We equally oppose the recent Chinese ICBM test, and the continued testing of Minuteman III ICBMs by the United States over the Pacific, alongside the expansion of military alliances and strategic military partnerships, including AUKUS, large-scale military exercises such as the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC), Valiant Shield, Talisman Sabre, and the continued expansion of foreign military presence and infrastructure across our Blue Pacific.

For Pacific peoples, this is not an abstract geopolitical contest. It is our home.

At a time when the region commemorates some of the darkest chapters in the Pacific’s nuclear history, the continued militarisation of our ocean is a stark reminder that the lessons of the past remain unlearned.

A painful reminder during a month of remembrance

The timing is particularly significant given the major nuclear anniversaries commemorated across the Pacific this month, including the 80th anniversary of Operation Crossroads, when the United States began detonating nuclear weapons at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands; the 60th anniversary of France’s first nuclear detonation at Moruroa Atoll in Ma’ohi Nui (French Polynesia); the 41st anniversary of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in an act of French state terrorism intended to silence opposition to nuclear testing in the Pacific; and the ninth anniversary of the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

For many outside the region, these anniversaries are history, but for Pacific peoples, they remain a lived memory. These anniversaries are more than moments of remembrance. They are also reminders that today’s security challenges cannot be separated from the unresolved legacies of nuclear colonialism, and that the pursuit of genuine peace in the Pacific must begin with acknowledging, addressing and learning from this shared history.

Another missile crossing our ocean cannot be separated from that history. Nor can it be separated from the continued use of the Pacific as a missile testing-corridor, including the regular testing of United States Minuteman III ICBMs towards Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The Treaty of Rarotonga, the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement, and today’s aspiration for an Ocean of Peace were all born from a shared determination that our region should never again become a testing ground for the strategic ambitions of others.

Militarisation is not peace

The Pacific has repeatedly declared its vision of becoming an Ocean of Peace. That vision is not simply the absence of armed conflict, but a Pacific understanding of security founded on justice, sovereignty, self-determination, environmental stewardship and the wellbeing of our peoples.

The recent missile test by China is not an isolated incident. It forms part of a broader pattern of escalating militarisation across our region that includes expanding defence agreements, increasing foreign military deployments, large-scale military exercises such as RIMPAC, Valiant Shield and Talisman Sabre, strategic infrastructure development, and growing geopolitical competition among external powers.

The PRNGO Alliance rejects the notion that military deterrence delivers peace. Escalating military competition is fundamentally inconsistent with the Pacific’s aspiration for an Ocean of Peace.

The Treaty of Rarotonga remains our regional foundation

As the Treaty of Rarotonga approaches its 40th anniversary, Pacific governments should reaffirm and strengthen one of the region’s most enduring commitments to peace and security. Born out of decades of Pacific resistance to nuclear detonations and nuclear colonialism, it declares our region as one of the world’s first nuclear-weapon-free zones and affirms the Pacific’s determination that our region would never again become a nuclear sacrifice zone.

Our call to Pacific Leaders

The PRNGO Alliance’s position is grounded not in the strategic interests of competing powers, but in decades of Pacific regional leadership and civil society advocacy. From the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement and the Treaty of Rarotonga to the Boe Declaration, the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent and the collective positions advanced by Pacific civil society, Pacific peoples have consistently articulated a vision of security founded on justice, sovereignty, self-determination, environmental stewardship, and demilitarisation. Recent events reinforce the urgency of translating those longstanding regional commitments into consistent political action.

The PRNGO Alliance therefore calls upon Pacific Leaders to:

Unequivocally condemn all missile tests conducted in or across the Pacific Ocean, regardless of whether they are undertaken by China, the United States or any other military power.

Reject the continued militarisation of the Blue Pacific, including expanding military alliances, foreign military basing, strategic deployments, nuclear deterrence policies and large-scale military exercises such as RIMPAC.

Reaffirm and strengthen the Treaty of Rarotonga as the cornerstone of Pacific regional security and fully implement its objectives.

Ensure that any future Ocean of Peace framework is genuinely Pacific-led, centred on human security, environmental protection, Indigenous rights, decolonisation and demilitarisation – not great-power strategic competition.

Support the universalisation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, including urging Australia and all Pacific partners that remain outside the Treaty to sign and ratify it.

Recognise that true regional security requires addressing climate change, ecological degradation, economic inequality and the unfinished business of nuclear justice, rather than expanding military competition.

Ensure that the future of Pacific security is determined by Pacific peoples, through Pacific institutions, and according to Pacific priorities. Build on an Ocean of Peace founded on human security, regional solidarity and environmental stewardship, and respect for Pacific sovereignty, not on the strategic calculations of external powers.

The Pacific has already paid the price of being treated as a testing ground, a military frontier, and a dumping ground for other nations’ ambitions.

The Pacific Ocean is not a theatre for great-power rivalry. It is our home. It is the foundation of our cultures, identities, livelihoods and futures.

If the Blue Pacific is to become a genuine Ocean of Peace, then militarisation must give way to justice, cooperation, and Pacific-led security founded on sovereignty, self-determination and the wellbeing of our peoples.

This statement is issued by the Pacific Regional Non-Governmental Organisations (PRNGO) Alliance and, at the time of publication, is endorsed by:

• Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC)
• Pacific Islands Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (PIANGO)
• Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN)
• Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG)
• Oxfam in the Pacific.

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

Naming a Long-Standing Pattern

For decades, Palestinians have described a particular kind of hostility that doesn’t fit neatly into existing categories of discrimination. It isn’t quite the same as Islamophobia, since not all Palestinians are Muslim. It isn’t quite the same as general anti-Arab racism, since it attaches specifically to Palestinian identity, history, and political claims. 

MIL OSI

HONG KONG SAR – Media OutReach Newswire – 20 June 2026 – Hong Kong’s Government Flying Service (GFS) held its inaugural three-day International Symposium on Emergency Response and Aeromedical Services (ISERAS) (June 16-18), bringing together more than 230 policymakers, experts and academics, and industry representatives from over 70 institutions and accredited organisations.

With participants from places including Hong Kong, the Chinese Mainland, Australia, the United Kingdom, Austria, Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand, the event aimed to foster closer co-operation in emergency linkage, resource sharing, and professional training among different regions.

The symposium featured a series of plenary sessions, panel discussions, technical visits, and live demonstrations jointly conducted by the GFS and various government emergency units. A number of memoranda of understanding were signed during the event, to deepen collaboration between the GFS and the Chinese Mainland as well as domestic and international emergency, aviation, and medical institutions.

Speaking at the opening ceremony, the Under Secretary for Security, Michael Cheuk, said that the challenges of emergency response as a result of the realities of climate change are evolving at an unprecedented pace.

“A shift to proactive prevention, continuous enhancement of international and cross-regional collaboration, and enhanced experience and insight sharing among stakeholders are key to rising to new and complex challenges,” Mr Cheuk said, adding that the collaborative spirit of ISERAS will forge stronger partnerships, further strengthen emergency response capabilities, and secure a safer future for communities.

The Director General of the Rescue and Salvage Bureau of the Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (CRS), Wang Lei, also attended the symposium and delivered a keynote presentation on air rescue capabilities and strategic development in the South China Sea.

The symposium concluded with an interdepartmental counter-terrorism drill and exchange session, with the participation of the GFS, the Hong Kong Police Force and the Hong Kong Fire Services Department, showcasing Hong Kong’s professional capabilities in responding to terrorist attacks.

The Controller of the GFS, Captain Eddie Liu, said that the GFS has always played an important role in emergency response and rescue. “In addition to assisting in search and rescue, providing air ambulance and other emergency aeromedical services, the GFS also shoulders the responsibility of maintaining internal security of the HKSAR,” he said.

“In emergencies such as terrorist attacks, the GFS would make rapid deployment to assist the disciplined services in conducting air assault, offering all-round support to the HKSAR Government’s overall counter-terrorism efforts.”

Since its establishment in 1993, the GFS has served at the forefront of round-the-clock search-and-rescue and emergency aeromedical operations, while the ISERAS aims to collectively build a truly transnational pool of professional expertise, thereby underscoring Hong Kong’s status as an aviation hub for emergency response in Asia.

https://www.brandhk.gov.hk/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/brand-hong-kong/
https://x.com/Brand_HK/
https://www.facebook.com/brandhk.isd
https://www.instagram.com/brandhongkong

Hashtag: #HongKong #BrandHongKong #GFS #Emergency #Response #Aeromedical #Symposium

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

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

10 June 2026 – The Reserve Bank of New Zealand – Te Pūtea Matua welcomes the High Court’s decision to impose a civil pecuniary penalty of $6.731 million on ASB Bank Limited for seven breaches of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Act 2009.

This is the highest AML/CFT penalty ever imposed by the Court in New Zealand. ASB is one of New Zealand’s largest banks and this penalty reflects the seriousness and prolonged nature of ASB’s non-compliance.

Banks are exposed to a high risk of money laundering and terrorism financing, and transaction monitoring plays a critical role in banks’ AML/CFT programmes. In this case, ASB’s transaction monitoring system and AML/CFT programme were inadequate for approximately six years, which is unacceptable.  

“Transaction monitoring is a key pillar to detect money laundering and terrorism financing. It is incumbent on banks to ensure their systems and processes are robust and sufficiently recognise and mitigate these risks,” Acting Assistant Governor Financial Stability Angus McGregor says.

“The AML/CFT Act plays an important part in maintaining and enhancing New Zealand’s international reputation and contributing to public confidence in our financial system. Non-compliance with transaction monitoring and reporting requirements denies New Zealand intelligence agencies crucial time-sensitive information that is needed to detect and deter money laundering and terrorism financing from impacting New Zealand communities,” Mr McGregor says.

Following an investigation, the Reserve Bank commenced proceedings against ASB in December 2025. ASB cooperated with the investigation and admitted to all seven breaches of the AML/CFT Act including failures to:

establish, implement, or maintain an AML/CFT programme relating to customer due diligence requirements;
establish, implement, or maintain an AML/CFT programme relating to requirements to manage and mitigate the risks of money laundering and terrorism financing;
establish, implement, or maintain an AML/CFT programme relating to monitoring and managing compliance with ASB’s procedures, policies, and controls;
adequately conduct ongoing customer due diligence on foreign trust customers;
report suspicious activities within the time required;
conduct enhanced customer due diligence; and
terminate business relationships when required.

This is an important reminder of the essential role of banks in maintaining the integrity and reputation of New Zealand’s financial system. In this case, ASB failed to meet this expectation.

In determining its enforcement response, the Reserve Bank applied its Enforcement Framework which is available on the Reserve Bank’s website.

More information

• Full Judgment
• Settlement Agreement
• Enforcement Framework
• How we regulate banks to ensure they meet their obligations under the AML/CFT Act

MIL OSI

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

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

MIL OSI

This story discusses suicide.

Loaded weapons and a Nazi uniform were found by police at the home of a man who died following a police stand-off in Christchurch, an inquest has heard.

Artemiy Dubovskiy, who was known as Troy, is suspected of killing himself early on March 27, 2019.

His death came less than two weeks after the mosque terror attack that killed 51 worshippers at two Christchurch mosques, and at a time when the country was on high alert for the possibility of further attacks.

Coroner Heather McKenzie was examining the circumstances of Dubovskiy’s death during an inquest in Christchurch.

On Monday. counsel assisting the Coroner, Josh Shaw said police searched Dubovskiy’s home on March 26 after receiving information he was supportive of the mosque shootings.

Officers found a loaded semi-automatic rifle and pistol, a substantial quantity of ammunition and items carrying Nazi symbolism, including a SS uniform.

Shaw said there were fears of a wider terror network and the possibility of copycat attacks after people were shot at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre on March 15, 2019.

“The terror alert was increased to high for the first time in our nation’s history, the first time it had been above low in our nation’s history,” he said.

“It was in that climate of heightened alert and risk that Mr Dubovskiy became a person of interest.

“Police received information that he had said to a family member that he was not going to prison, he would not be taken in and he may take his own life.”

A senior sergeant spotted a car linked to Dubovskiy late on March 26, 2019.

“This wasn’t a pursuit, I should say, but rather a following. It came to the point that the driver, who was Mr Dubovskiy, knew he was being followed,” Shaw said.

Dubovskiy pulled his Mitsubishi Pajero into a no-exit street in the Shirley/Burwood area.

More officers were called to the area and a stand-off ensued.

Shaw said Dubovskiy remained in his car and spoke to a police negotiator by phone.

“The immediate response from Mr Dubovskiy when he learns he was speaking to a police officer is he says it would be best for the police to kill him or take him out because he wasn’t going to jail,” he said.

“The response was that no-one had to get hurt, there was a way out.”

During the almost two-hour long phone call Dubovskiy and the negotiator discussed family, politics and the state of New Zealand.

Dubovskiy was also communicating with his family using a second phone.

The negotiator’s call to Dubovskiy cut out, possibly because Dubovskiy’s phone battery ran low.

Three further calls of a short duration were made but by 3am the calls were not connecting, Shaw said.

A Defence Force light vehicle moved near Dubovskiy’s Pajero.

He was seen to slump backwards and then forwards with tactical police officers then moving in.

“Tear gas is deployed into his vehicle, he is extracted from his vehicle by officers with the assistance of a police dog who has Mr Dubovskiy by the leg,” Shaw said.

Once he was removed from the car it was clear he was critically injured and his breathing was light and shallow.

A paramedic gave him medical attention and a second medic arrived by helicopter.

“Those efforts persist for as long as they can but it is apparent they are not successful and Mr Dubovskiy is declared dead at the scene sometime after 4am,” Shaw said.

The police response to information about Dubovskiy and the events that followed had to be taken in the context of the Christchurch terror attack, Shaw said.

But it also raised questions by the family about whether police took a heavy-handed approach culminating in Dubovskiy’s death and possibly leading to delays in his receiving medical treatment, he said.

Lawyer for police Pip Currie said Dubovskiy’s death “is not the outcome police wanted”.

A Dubovskiy family member, whose name was suppressed, said they were not aware of his terrorist sympathies and he was a helpful person who was always there for his family and friends.

“I never heard any plans from him about any terrorism or anything like that,” they said.

“I think he had a good chance to surrender that night. I feel like the family could have convinced him. We were shocked by the mosque shooting and as a family we donated money to them at the time.”

Police witnesses would be called at the inquest.

Where to get help:

• Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason
• Lifeline: 0800 543 354 or text HELP to 4357
• Suicide Crisis Helpline: 0508 828 865 / 0508 TAUTOKO. This is a service for people who may be thinking about suicide, or those who are concerned about family or friends
• Depression Helpline: 0800 111 757 or text 4202
• Samaritans: 0800 726 666
• Youthline: 0800 376 633 or text 234 or email talk@youthline.co.nz
• What’s Up: 0800 WHATSUP / 0800 9428 787. This is free counselling for 5 to 19-year-olds
• Asian Family Services: 0800 862 342 or text 832. Languages spoken: Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Japanese, Hindi, and English.
• Rural Support Trust Helpline: 0800 787 254
• Healthline: 0800 611 116
• Rainbow Youth: (09) 376 4155
• OUTLine: 0800 688 5463
• Aoake te Rā bereaved by suicide service: or call 0800 000 053

If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

$3.4bn AI Cloud Contract & 5GW Strategic Partnership with NVIDIA

2026 Expansion to $3.7bn ARR On Track¹

2027 Expansion to 1.2GW of AI Cloud Capacity In Build

2028+ Expansion Across North America, Europe and APAC Underway

NEW YORK, May 07, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — IREN Limited (NASDAQ: IREN) (“IREN” or “the Company”) today provided a business update and reported its financial results for the three months ended Mar 31, 2026.

Highlights

• $3.4bn AI Cloud contract with NVIDIA
  • 5-year contract for air-cooled Blackwell GPUs
  • Deploying within 60MW of existing data centers at Childress
  • Targeting ramp from early 2027
• 5GW strategic partnership with NVIDIA
  • Collaboration to support deployment of NVIDIA-aligned infrastructure and architecture across IREN’s 5GW global data center pipeline
  • As part of the partnership, IREN issued to NVIDIA a 5-year right to purchase up to 30 million shares of ordinary stock at an exercise price of $70 per share, resulting in a right to invest up to $2.1 billion, subject to certain conditions including regulatory²
• 2026 expansion to 480MW on track 
  • Horizon 1-4 on track for delivery by year-end
  • Operational capacity fully contracted
  • $3.1bn ARR under contract, targeting $3.7bn ARR by end of CY26^{1, 3}
• 2027 expansion to 1,210MW in build
  • Childress Horizons 5–6
  • Childress air-cooled capacity
  • Sweetwater 1 initial phase
• 2028+ expansion across 5GW secured power underway
  • Additional Sweetwater and Kiowa data center capacity expected to ramp from 2028
  • Acquisition of Nostrum adds 490MW in Spain and GW+ development pipeline
  • Additional development projects in Australia advancing toward connection agreement
• Strengthening AI Cloud delivery with acquisition of Mirantis
  • Strengthens how IREN’s compute is deployed, managed and operated for customers
  • Builds on IREN’s existing software, engineering and customer support capabilities 
  • Enables IREN to serve a broader range of customer requirements over time
  • Supporting delivery of NVIDIA AI Cloud contract
• Multiple GPU, data center and corporate level financing initiatives underway
  • Near term capex expected to be met through combination of existing cash ($2.6bn at Apr 30)⁴, operating cash flows, GPU financing and additional financing initiatives

Q3 FY26 Financial Results

• Results reflected continued progress in the transition from Bitcoin mining to AI Cloud
  • Total revenue decreased to $144.8m (vs. Q2 FY26 $184.7m)
  • Net income (loss) of $(247.8)m (vs. Q2 FY26 $(155.4)m)
  • Adj. EBITDA decreased to $59.5m (vs. Q2 FY26 $75.3m)⁵
• Revenues decreased $39.9m, driven by lower average Bitcoin price combined with decommissioning of mining hardware ahead of GPU installation and billing, partially offset by increase in AI Cloud revenue
• Cost of revenues decreased $25.9m, primarily driven by lower electricity cost resulting from reduced Bitcoin mining capacity
• Net income (loss) impacted by non-cash impairments of $(140.4m) primarily related to decommissioning of mining hardware and unrealized losses related to capped calls associated with convertible notes of $(23.7)m

Management Commentary

“The world is structurally short compute, and the bottleneck is delivered data center and GPU capacity,” said Daniel Roberts, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of IREN. “That plays directly into IREN’s core strengths – securing power, developing land, building data centers and bringing compute online at scale.

This quarter reflected strong execution against that opportunity. We energized the Sweetwater 1 substation on schedule, advanced the Horizon 1-4 liquid-cooled data centers at Childress in support of our $9.7bn contract with Microsoft, and continued transitioning existing data centers from ASICs to GPUs for higher-value AI Cloud workloads. We also signed a 5-year, $3.4bn AI Cloud contract with NVIDIA and entered into a broader strategic partnership that further validates IREN’s key role in the AI infrastructure ecosystem.

The acquisitions of Nostrum and Mirantis will strengthen our platform, adding European sites and teams, together with software, orchestration and support capabilities that will broaden customer access over time as we scale across our global 5GW secured power portfolio.”

Q3 FY26 Results Webcast & Conference Call
IREN will host its Q3 FY26 results webcast and conference call at the following time:

The webcast will be recorded, and the replay will be accessible shortly after the event at https://iren.com/investor/events-and-presentations

About IREN

IREN is a vertically integrated AI Cloud provider, delivering large-scale data centers and GPU clusters for AI training and inference. IREN’s platform is underpinned by its expansive portfolio of grid-connected land and power in renewable-rich regions across North America, Europe and APAC.

Contacts

Investors
ir@iren.com

Media
media@iren.com

Assumptions and Notes

1. ARR of $3.7bn represents expected $1.9bn average annual revenue under Microsoft contract plus estimated $1.8bn ARR from ~74k GPU deployment at British Columbia and Childress sites, based on internal company assumptions regarding GPU models, utilization and pricing. It is not fully contracted, there can be no assurance that it will be achieved, and actual revenue may differ materially. Assumes on time delivery and commissioning of GPUs.
2. The investment will be made pursuant to a Securities Purchase Agreement pursuant to which IREN has agreed to sell investment rights to NVIDIA to purchase an aggregate of 30,000,000 ordinary shares in IREN, subject to certain adjustments in accordance with the terms of the investment rights, in a private placement for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $2.1bn (if fully exercised and subject to any regulatory limitations).
3. ARR under contract of $3.1bn represents expected $1.9bn average annual revenue under Microsoft contract, expected $0.7bn average annual revenue under NVIDIA contract, plus $0.5bn ARR under contract from GPU deployments at Prince George. ARR under contract includes amounts that are not yet revenue-generating until the relevant GPUs are delivered, commissioned, and in service. There can be no assurance that contracted GPUs will result in such hours or pricing, and actual revenue may vary materially.
4. Reflects USD equivalent, unaudited preliminary cash and cash equivalents as of April 30, 2026.
5. Adjusted EBITDA are non-GAAP financial measures. Refer to page 12 for a reconciliation to the nearest comparable GAAP financial measure.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements include information concerning possible or assumed future results of operations, including descriptions of our business plan and strategies and trends we expect to affect our business. These statements often include words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “suggest,” “plan,” “believe,” “intend,” “estimate,” “target,” “project,” “should,” “potential,” “could,” “would,” “may,” “will,” “forecast,” and other similar expressions Forward-looking statements may also be made, verbally or in writing, by members of our Board or management team. Such statements are subject to the same limitations, uncertainties, assumptions and disclaimers set out in this press release.

We base these forward-looking statements or projections on our current expectations, plans and assumptions that we have made in light of our experience in the industry, as well as our perceptions of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors we believe are appropriate under the circumstances and at such time. The forward-looking statements are subject to and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions and you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Although we believe that these forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions at the time they are made, you should be aware that many factors could affect our actual financial results or results of operations, and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Factors that may materially affect such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: our ability to obtain additional capital on commercially reasonable terms and in a timely manner to meet our capital needs and facilitate our expansion plans; the amount and terms of any future financing or grant of security, or any refinancing, restructuring or modification to the terms of any existing or future financing or grant of security, which could require us to comply with onerous covenants, restrictions or guarantees, and our ability to service our debt obligations; our ability to successfully execute on our growth strategies and operating plans, including our ability to continue to develop our existing data center sites, design and deploy direct-to-chip liquid cooling systems, provide software, and operate and expand our high-performance computing (“HPC”) business (including our AI Cloud Services business and, potentially, colocation services such as powered shell, build-to-suit and turnkey data centers (“Colocation Services”) (collectively “HPC and AI services”)); our limited experience with respect to new markets and geographies we have entered or may seek to enter, including the market for HPC and AI services, the expansion of our capabilities to include software offerings, and our expansion into new geographies for data centers such as Australia and Europe; our ability to remain competitive in dynamic and rapidly evolving industries; expectations with respect to the useful life and obsolescence of hardware (including GPUs, hardware for Bitcoin mining and any current or future HPC and AI services we offer) and the related impairment charges we may incur upon retirement thereof, which could be material; ability to, and costs associated with, re-purpose data centers historically used for Bitcoin mining for use in any current or future HPC and AI services, along with the related impairment charges we may incur upon retirement of existing Bitcoin mining hardware, which could be material; delays, increases in costs or reductions in the supply of equipment used in our operations including as a result of tariffs and duties, and certain equipment (including GPUs and any other hardware for any current or future HPC and AI services we offer) being in high demand due to global supply chain constraints, and our ability to secure additional hardware (including GPUs and any other hardware for any current or future HPC and AI services we offer), on commercially reasonable terms or at all; expectations with respect to the profitability, viability, operability, security, popularity and public perceptions of any current and future HPC and AI services we offer, including GPU rental rates; our ability to secure and retain customers on commercially reasonable terms or at all, particularly as it relates to our strategy to expand our AI Cloud Services business and potentially diversify into markets for other HPC and AI services; our ability to establish and maintain a customer base for our HPC and AI services business and customer concentration; our ability to manage counterparty risk (including credit risk) associated with any current or future customers, including customers of our HPC and AI services and other counterparties; the risk that any current or future customers, including customers of our HPC and AI services or other counterparties, may terminate, default on or underperform their contractual obligations; our ability to perform under, and observe our obligations pursuant to, service level agreements and other contractual obligations with counterparties, including customers of our HPC and AI services; changing political and geopolitical conditions, including changing international trade policies and the implementation of wide-ranging, reciprocal and retaliatory tariffs, surtaxes and other similar import or export duties, or trade restrictions; Bitcoin price, Bitcoin global hashrate and foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations; expectations with respect to the ongoing profitability, viability, operability, security, popularity and public perceptions of the Bitcoin network; our ability to secure renewable energy, renewable energy certificates, power capacity, timely grid connections, facilities and sites on commercially reasonable terms or at all; delays and costs associated with, or failure to obtain or complete, permitting approvals, grid connections and other development activities customary for greenfield or brownfield infrastructure projects in various jurisdictions, including as a result of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas’s (“ERCOT”) announced amendments to the approval process for large load interconnection requests; our reliance on power, network and utilities providers, third party mining pools, exchanges, banks, insurance providers and our ability to maintain relationships with such parties; expectations regarding availability and pricing of electricity; our participation and ability to successfully participate in demand response products and services and other load management programs run, operated or offered by electricity network operators, regulators or electricity market operators; the availability, reliability and/or cost of electricity supply, hardware and electrical and data center infrastructure, including with respect to any electricity outages and any laws and regulations that may restrict the electricity supply available to us; any variance between the actual operating performance of our miner hardware achieved compared to the nameplate performance including hashrate; electricity market risks relating to changes in laws, regulations and requirements of market operators, network operators and/or regulatory bodies in the jurisdictions in which we operate, including with respect to interconnection of facilities of large electrical loads to the ERCOT grid (for example, via a process that may batch multiple large load interconnection requests), grid stability, voltage ride-through, frequency ride-through and curtailment obligations; heightened complexity and additional constraints in energy markets, including international energy markets with which we are less familiar, including load ramp requirements by utilities or grid operators which may not align with our planned data center development and commissioning timelines; our ability to curtail our electricity consumption and/or monetize electricity depending on market conditions, including changes in Bitcoin mining economics and prevailing electricity prices; actions undertaken or inaction by electricity network and market operators, regulators, governments or communities in the regions in which we operate, including such actions that could result in the estimated power availability at secured sites being materially less than initially expected, available too late, delayed, conditioned upon technical or operational requirements or not available in each case whether at sustainable cost or at all; our ability to secure connection agreements to access power sources and permits or to maintain in good standing the operating and other permits, approvals and/or licenses required for our operations, construction activities and business which could be delayed by regulatory approval processes, may not be successful or may be cost prohibitive; the availability, suitability, reliability and cost of internet connections at our facilities; the pending acquisitions of Mirantis, Inc. (“Mirantis”) and of the Ingenostrum, S.L. (trading as Nostrum Group) (“Nostrum Group”), as well as any other pending or future acquisitions, dispositions, joint ventures or other strategic transactions, including our ability to obtain the requisite regulatory approvals, satisfy the applicable closing conditions and to consummate any such transactions on terms favorable to the Group or at all, as well as to successfully integrate and achieve the anticipated benefits of any such acquisition that may be completed; unanticipated costs or liabilities associated with the pending acquisition of Mirantis or Nostrum Group, or any other pending or future acquisitions, dispositions, joint ventures or other strategic transactions, and any failure to comply with laws, rules, regulations or business practices that we may become subject to as a result of any expansion of our business in connection with the pending acquisition of Mirantis or Nostrum Group or any other such acquisition, joint venture or other strategic transaction; our ability to operate in an evolving regulatory environment; our ability to successfully operate and maintain our property and infrastructure; reliability and performance of our infrastructure compared to expectations; malicious attacks on our property, infrastructure or IT systems; our ability to obtain, maintain, protect and enforce our intellectual property rights and confidential information; any intellectual property infringement and product liability claims; whether the secular trends we expect to drive growth in our business materialize to the degree we expect them to, or at all; any pending or future acquisitions, dispositions, joint ventures or other strategic transactions, including our ability to consummate any such transactions on terms favorable to the Group or at all; the occurrence of any environmental, health and safety incidents at our sites, and any material costs relating to environmental, health and safety requirements or liabilities; damage to our property and infrastructure and the risk that any insurance we maintain may not fully cover all potential exposures; settlement and termination of proceedings relating to the default under certain equipment financing facilities, ongoing securities litigation, and any future litigation, claims and/or regulatory investigations, and the costs, expenses, use of resources, diversion of management time and efforts, liability and damages that may result therefrom; our failure to comply with any laws including the anti-corruption and sanctions laws, rules and regulations of the United States and various international jurisdictions; any failure of our compliance and risk management methods; any laws, regulations and ethical standards that may relate to our business, including those that relate to data centers, HPC and AI services, Bitcoin and the Bitcoin mining industry and those that relate to any other services we offer, including laws and regulations related to data privacy, cybersecurity and the storage, use or processing of information and consumer laws; our ability to attract, motivate and retain senior management and qualified employees; increased risks to our global operations including, but not limited to, political instability, outbreak of war, acts of terrorism, theft and vandalism, cyberattacks and other cybersecurity incidents and unexpected regulatory and economic sanctions changes, among other things; climate change, severe weather conditions and natural and man-made disasters that may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations; public health crises, including an outbreak of an infectious disease and any governmental or industry measures taken in response; damage to our brand and reputation; evolving stakeholder expectations and requirements relating to environmental, social or governance (“ESG”) issues or reporting, including actual or perceived failure to comply with such expectations and requirements; volatility with respect to the market price of our ordinary shares (“Ordinary shares”); that we do not currently pay any cash dividends on our Ordinary shares, and may not in the foreseeable future and, accordingly, your ability to achieve a return on your investment in our Ordinary shares will depend on appreciation, if any, in the price of our Ordinary shares; and other important factors discussed under “Part 1. Item 1.A. Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2025 and “Part II. Item 1A. Risk Factors” in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2025, as such factors may be updated from time to time in our other filings with the SEC, accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and the Investor Relations section of IREN’s website at https:// investors.iren.com.

The foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive and does not necessarily include all of the important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any of our forward-looking statements.

These and other important factors could cause actual results to differ materially by the forward-looking statements made in this press release. Any forward-looking statement that IREN makes in this press release speaks only as of the date of such statement. Except as required by law, IREN disclaims any obligation to update or revise, or to publicly announce any update or revision to, any of the forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

This press release refers to certain measures that are not recognized under GAAP and do not have a standardized meaning prescribed by GAAP. IREN uses non-GAAP measures including “Adjusted EBITDA” and “Adjusted EBITDA margin” (each as defined below) as additional information to complement GAAP measures by providing further understanding of the Company’s operations from management’s perspective.

Adjusted EBITDA is defined as net income (loss), excluding income tax (expense) benefit, finance expense, interest income and depreciation and amortization, stock based compensation, foreign exchange gain (loss), impairment of assets, certain other non-recurring income, gain (loss) on disposal of property, plant and equipment, unrealized fair value gain (loss) on financial instruments, debt conversion inducement expense, gain (loss) on partial extinguishment of financial liabilities, increase (decrease) in fair value of assets held for sale and certain other expense items. “Adjusted EBITDA margin” is defined as Adjusted EBITDA divided by revenue.

Beginning in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2026, the Company has changed its definition of Adjusted EBITDA to exclude debt conversion inducement expense. This is a change from the presentation of Adjusted EBITDA in prior periods, and these adjustments did not have any impact on the calculation of Adjusted EBITDA in prior periods.

The reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures are shown in the Appendix hereto.

Consolidated Balance Sheet

Consolidated Statement of Operations

Consolidated Statement of Cashflows

Non-GAAP Metric Reconciliation

– Published by The MIL Network

Explainer – You’re reading this in English right now – but should English be an official language? Parliament is soon set to decide.

A long-running debate on the status of the most commonly spoken language in New Zealand is nearing its climax in Parliament, as the English Language Act works its way through the House.

During a fiery debate in Parliament back in February at the first reading, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters made his case for the bill while many opposition MPs firmly denounced it.

Peters called it a “common sense idea” and has said it fills an anomaly where Māori and English Sign Language are already both codified as official languages in New Zealand, but English is not specifically.

Others disagree. “Language is being used as a political football here,” said Dr Sharon Harvey, an associate professor specialising in applied linguistics at Auckland University of Technology.

The bill is currently before select committee with a report due to be presented on 3 September. The next step is a second reading of the bill and it’s likely it would come to a final vote before November’s election.

But what would the bill actually do? Here’s what you need to know.

What does the bill say?

Bills are often pretty darned long, but this one can actually be summed up right here – it’s only five lines.

It calls for Parliament to enact the English Language Act 2025, and says, “The purpose of this Act is to provide legislative recognition of the status of English as an official language of New Zealand” and that the Act would bind the Crown.

That’s it.

What would the bill actually do?

“The bill is so short because it doesn’t actually have any legal effect that needs spelt out in detail,” University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. “It will have literally no practical consequences at all.

“That isn’t an exaggeration – it will change absolutely no aspect of Aotearoa New Zealand’s current legal rules, practices or procedures. It’s the linguistic equivalent of passing an Act of Parliament that says: ‘The official colour of the New Zealand Rugby Team’s home jersey is black.’”

The bill doesn’t lay out any instructions, punishments or restrictions on other languages. It would add English as an official language alongside Te Reo Māori – which was designated in the Māori Language Act in 1987 – and English Sign Language, designated in the New Zealand Sign Language Act of 2006.

“While the bill is pretty slim in terms of its content it does serve symbolically at least to cast in legislation the pre-eminence of the already dominant and majoritarian language of NZ: English,” Harvey said.

Legislatively, it would not affect Māori and ESL, Geddis said, as they have “separately guaranteed (but limited) rights to use those languages”.

“Legislative language recognition was hard won for both Māori and the deaf community and so the English Language Bill also minimises the historical and contemporaneous importance of those difficult and long language struggles,” Harvey said.

As written, the bill wouldn’t even affect, for instance, signs that include Chinese language at some popular tourist spots, Geddis said.

“That legislative recognition does not add anything to English’s existing legal role and usage. You can use English for any official, public business now. If this bill passes, you will continue to be able to do so. Nothing will have changed.”

Watch: Winston Peters introduces the English Language Act.

[embedded content]

If nothing will change, why was this bill introduced?

Making English an official language was part of the coalition agreement between National, NZ First and ACT back in 2023.

Former NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell put forth a similar member’s bill in 2018 but it was never drawn from the ballot.

New Zealand First has pushed for such recognition for some time.

Did you know that English is not an official language? Well, we’re changing that by delivering on a key campaign promise – we are making English an official language of New Zealand. We will continue to fight for common sense ideas and work in the interests of all New Zealanders. pic.twitter.com/ki3dDh8tDI

— New Zealand First (@nzfirst) December 14, 2023

In introducing the current bill, Peters said that it’s correcting an “anomaly” that English is not included with the other two official languages.

“It has never been formally recognised in statute as an official language. This bill seeks to correct that anomaly, providing consistency in legal framework and clarifying the status of all three official languages in legislation.

“The bill does not diminish the status of other official languages, te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language, but rather complements them, acknowledging the linguistic reality of our nation.”

Peters said the bill is “affirming the value of English as a shared means of communication used by the mass majority of the population – I’ll say it again quietly: used by the mass majority of the population.”

Although his name is actually on the bill as the MP in charge, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith previously told RNZ that it wasn’t a top priority for National and did not speak at the first reading.

“It wouldn’t be the top priority for us, absolutely not. But it’s something in the coalition and it’s getting done.”

Peters has said that the rise in te reo Māori has “has created situations that encourage misunderstanding and confusion for all, and all for the purpose to push a narrative”.

“We have some very real situations now where communications and names of important services are using te reo as primary names and language, and the room for confusion and miscommunication is huge.”

He cited the possibility of confusion where places have had primary names in Māori.

“First responders, on their vehicles and in communications, being unable to get to places because they don’t know where they’re going; transport services with important road signs – they have all announced that.”

Harvey disagreed, saying the dynamic of Māori and English is what makes New Zealand special.

“Te reo Māori only exists in ANZ and so if it does not survive and flourish here it will not survive.”

“Most of us would recognise that Te Whatu Ora means health especially if it’s heading a letter with health information or is signage on a public hospital,” she said.

“There is no ‘danger’ to English now or in the future. Apart from anything else it is the pre-eminent global language.

“It would be so much better for NZ if we could all gain high proficiency in te reo Māori (as well as English) and if schools could be proactive in supporting students’ home languages, as well as teaching a variety of languages.”

Is English language use becoming a “culture war” issue?

Well, people on both sides of the debate of the current bill have accused the other of “virtue signalling.”

In Parliament, Peters said that “This bill won’t solve the push of this virtue signalling narrative completely, but it is the first step towards ensuring logic and common sense prevails when the vast majority of New Zealanders communicate in English and understand English in a country that should use English as its primary and official language.”

“The (bill) is virtue signalling to a small, monolingual in English, sector of the voting public by NZ First,” Harvey said. “It’s a waste of public money and time and should never have been agreed to as part of the National-NZ First coalition agreement.”

Debate at the first reading was equally heated.

“The English language is not under threat,” said Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick. “We are literally speaking it and debating in it right now. This is a bill which is an answer to a problem that does not exist.”

“The government wants to stoke a fight between te iwi Māori and Pākehā, and they want that fight to be the focus of this election,” she claimed.

At the debate, National MP Rima Nakhle called for calmer temperatures.

“We’re only making English official. It’s not the end of the world.”

Geddis said “the bill seems to be motivated by an odd form of linguistic jealousy – something akin to ‘it’s not fair that those languages get called official in a statute, but English doesn’t!’”

New Zealand First’s 2023 coalition agreement with National also stipulated that public service departments have their primary name in English and be required to communicate “primarily in English” except for entities specifically related to Māori. It has been seen in changes to how agencies such as the New Zealand Transport Agency or Health New Zealand are referred to.

Peters has also been vocal about the use of “Aotearoa” to refer to New Zealand by other MPs.

Other countries like Australia and the United Kingdom do not have any official laws on the books declaring English an official language, although it has de facto official status in government, courts and education.

In America, Donald Trump signed an executive order last year “designating English as an official language of the United States.” But as the decision was not passed by Congress and is an executive order, it doesn’t have the power to change existing federal laws and statutes. Around 30 US states also have proclaimed English the official language.

Will the English Language Act pass?

It’s unclear. It is part of the coalition agreement so National and ACT may be obliged to support it.

“Being that we are an English-speaking country, it is bizarre that we have to do this, but this is how far this extremism has taken our country,” Peters said in 2023 before the last election as he pledged to pass the bill that may finally be law soon.

“The bill very well may be rushed into law during the inevitable end-of-term use of urgency in the House,” Geddis said.

“Given current frosty relations between National and NZ First, there could well be some coalition partner reluctance to give NZ First time in Parliament to proceed with what really is nothing more than a form of legislative virtue signalling to its support base,” he said.

“Although National have publicly said they’re not concerned whether the bill passes or not, I think there is every chance it will pass which will be a great shame for NZ,” Harvey said.

“It’s a waste of the government’s time and considerably sets back New Zealand’s progress in righting the wrongs of our violent, colonial past.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

The white supremacist terrorist who massacred 51 worshippers at two Christchurch mosques will remain in prison for the rest of his life after the Court of Appeal dismissed his attempt to overturn his convictions and sentence.

Survivors and families of the victims were relieved the court declined Brenton Tarrant’s appeals, saying the decision spares them from reliving the trauma again.

During a week-long Court of Appeal hearing in February, the terrorist claimed he was “forced” to plead guilty to 92 charges following the March 2019 terror attack because he was irrational as a result of his prison conditions.

He wanted his convictions set aside and to stand trial instead.

A week after February’s hearing, the 35-year-old Australian then sought to abandon his appeal and fired his lawyer the following week.

The terrorist had to seek the court’s leave – or permission – to appeal his convictions and sentence out of time because his application was filed 505 days late.

In a unanimous decision released on Thursday, the court’s justices declined the terrorist’s application for leave and his application to abandon the appeal against his convictions.

The court granted his application to abandon the appeal against his sentence, which would have been heard at a later date.

“Mr Tarrant has failed by a considerable margin to adequately explain the extraordinarily long delay in filing his notice of appeal,” the court said.

“The facts concerning Mr Tarrant’s offending are beyond dispute. He has not identified any arguable defence, or indeed any defence known to the law. We have also rejected his claim that his guilty pleas were the product of him having an irrational state of mind induced by his prison conditions.

“Mr Tarrant’s proposed appeal is utterly devoid of merit.”

In a statement, lawyers acting for the survivors and families of victims said they were pleased by the court’s decision.

“This is a huge relief that the law has now done its job and that the families, and frankly all of us, will be spared the trauma of reliving the 15th of March all over again in a trial,” they said.

“It is a huge relief that the difficult and often unsupported journey families are on will not now be added to by the great burden of a new trial. It would have been unimaginably traumatic.

“This has not been easy. As families try to move on … and rebuild their lives seven years on, this appeal has been yet another challenge. But it is another challenge they have overcome and we acknowledge their resilience.”

Crown lawyers, including deputy solicitor-general Madeleine Laracy, met with some victims ahead of February’s hearing.

“The Crown considers it was extremely important for the victims’ sense of justice, and for wider public confidence in the appeal process, that the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment which addressed the merits of the appellant’s claims despite his attempt to abandon the appeal shortly after the five-day hearing. The judgment is thorough, and speaks for itself,” Laracy said.

Tarrant left 51 people dead or dying in little over 15 minutes after taking an arsenal of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and incendiary devices to Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre on 15 March and opening fire as worshippers marked Jumu’ah – the most significant prayer of the Muslim week.

The terrorist initially pleaded not guilty in June 2019 to 51 counts of murder, 40 of attempted murder, and one of committing terrorism.

His former lawyers told the Court of Appeal in February he then wavered in late July 2019 and prepared to plead guilty before again changing his mind days later.

In March 2020, he formally pleaded guilty to all charges and was jailed for life without the possibility of parole in August 2020.

The terrorist had 20 working days to file an appeal against his convictions or sentence but the application came more than a year later in November 2022.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

A law professor is concerned that left wing terrorism is on the rise in the United States.

On Saturday night a lone gunman opened fire at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington.

“For a long time, the left-wing terror attacks were a thing of the 1960s and 1970s,” said University of Waikato Law Professor Alexander Gillespie. “But now you’re seeing a resurgence as there is a reaction against some of the right-wing leaders.”

Other forms of terror attacks included right-wing and religious-based terror.

Current US president and Republican Donald Trump, who was rushed from the dinner along with wife Melania Trump, has survived two prior assassination attempts, both during his 2024 campaign, along with a number of other threats and security failures during his two terms as president.

Gillespie said “reaction” against right-wing leaders was a trend which was becoming dominant in the United States.

“I think the pendulum is now swinging towards left-wing, and unfortunately, the pendulum may have some way to swing yet,” Gillespie said.

Gillespie said it was very important for political leaders on all sides of the political spectrum to now condemn the violence and discourage copycat attempts.

Authorities have not yet disclosed if Saturday’s shooting was intended as a terror attack.

Who is the suspected shooter?

Law enforcement have identified the suspected shooter as Cole Tomas Allen, 31, from Torrance, California.

According to US media Allen is a Caltech graduate who was working part-time teacher as a teacher for C2 Education ​and as a self-employed ​game developer.

Allen reportedly registered a trademark for an indie game called ‘Bohrdom’ he developed in 2018, and was developing a second game, with the working name ‘First Law’.”

According to Federal Election Commission records, in October 2024 Allen donated US$25 to ActBlue, a political action committee that raises funds for Democrats, earmarked for Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

MIL OSI

21 April 2026 – Amnesty International calls on states to stop predatory, anti-rights order from taking hold in pivotal moment for humanity

Predatory attacks on multilateralism, international law and civil society marked 2025
The alternative on offer is a racist, patriarchal, unequal and anti-rights world order
Protesters, activists and global bodies are working to resist, disrupt and transform

The world is on the brink of a perilous new era, driven by powerful states’, corporations’ and anti-rights movements’ assaults on multilateralism, international law and human rights, Amnesty International warned today upon launching its annual report, The State of the World’s Human Rights. States, international bodies and civil society must reject the politics of appeasement and collectively resist these attacks to prevent this new order from taking hold, the organization said in its assessment of the human rights situation in 144 countries.

“We are confronting the most challenging moment of our age. Humanity is under attack from transnational anti-rights movements and predatory governments determined to assert their dominance through unlawful wars and brazen economic blackmail,” said Amnesty International’s Secretary General, Agnès Callamard.

“For years, Amnesty International has denounced the gradual disintegration of human rights in every part of the world, warning of the consequences of flagrant rule-breaking by governments and corporate actors. We’ve also demonstrated time and again how double standards and selective compliance with international law have weakened the multilateral system and accountability.

“What marks this moment as fundamentally different is that we’re no longer documenting erosion around the system’s edges. This is a direct assault on the foundations of human rights and the international rules-based order by the most powerful actors for the purpose of control, impunity and profit.

“The spiralling conflict in the Middle East is a product of this descent into lawlessness. Following the initial unlawful US-Israeli attacks in violation of the UN Charter, which triggered Iran’s indiscriminate retaliation, the conflict has quickly morphed into an open warfare against civilians and civilian infrastructure, exacerbating the already catastrophic suffering of people across the region. It is now engulfing countries around the world, impacting populations everywhere, and threatening the livelihood of millions. This is what happens when the norms, institutions and legal framework painstakingly built to safeguard humanity are hollowed out for the purpose of domination.”

“Amnesty’s 2025 annual report moves beyond warning of imminent breakdown to documenting a collapse now underway, and exposing its devastating consequences for human rights, global stability and the lives of millions in 2026 and beyond. It calls on states around the world to urgently reject the politics of appeasement embraced in 2025, overcome fear, and resist in words and actions the construction of a predatory world order.”

Predatory attacks are accelerating the destruction of international law

The State of the World’s Human Rights, and Amnesty International’s documentation so far this year, detail pervasive crimes under international law and mounting attacks on the international justice system, which are gravely harming the foundations that underpin human rights globally.

Israel has maintained its genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, despite the October 2025 ceasefire agreement, and its system of apartheid over Palestinians, while accelerating the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and taking steps toward annexation. Israeli authorities have increasingly allowed or encouraged settlers to attack and terrorize Palestinians with impunity, and prominent officials have praised and glorified violence against Palestinians, including arbitrary arrests and the torture of detainees.

The United States of America has committed over 150 extrajudicial executions by bombing boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, and carried out an act of aggression against Venezuela in January 2026. Russia has intensified its aerial attacks on critical civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, while Myanmar’s military used motorized paragliders to drop explosive munitions on villages last year, killing dozens of civilians, including children.

The United Arab Emirates has fuelled the conflict in Sudan by providing advanced Chinese weaponry to the Rapid Support Forces, who seized control of El Fasher last October after an 18-month siege of the city and committed mass civilian killings and sexual violence. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the M23 armed group, with the active support of Rwanda, captured the cities of Goma and Bukavu and unlawfully killed civilians and tortured detainees.

In early 2026, the USA and Israel’s unlawful use of force against Iran, in violation of the UN Charter, has triggered retaliatory Iranian strikes on Israel and Gulf Cooperation Council countries, while Israel has escalated its attacks on Lebanon. From the killing of over 100 children in an unlawful US strike on a school in Iran, to the devastating attacks by all parties on energy infrastructure, the conflict has endangered the lives and health of millions of civilians and threatens to inflict vast, predictable and long-term civilian and environmental harm, impacting access to energy, healthcare, food and water across an already turbulent region and beyond.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban escalated its predatory policies against the female population, with further bans prohibiting them from education, work and freedom of movement, while in Iran, the authorities massacred protesters in January 2026, in what was likely the most lethal such repression for decades.

The USA, Israel and Russia further undermined international accountability mechanisms, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in particular, last year. The Trump administration enacted sanctions against ICC staff, collaborators and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, while Russian courts issued arrest warrants against ICC officials. Several other states withdrew or announced their intention to withdraw from the Rome Statute and treaties banning cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines.

The vast majority of states have been unwilling or unable to consistently denounce predatory acts by the USA, Russia, Israel or China, or to chisel out diplomatic solutions. The European Union and most European states appeased US assaults on international law and multilateral mechanisms. They have failed to take meaningful action to stop Israel’s genocide or end the irresponsible arms and technology transfers fuelling crimes under international law around the world. They have also been unwilling to enact blocking statutes to protect the targets of US sanctions, including on ICC judges and prosecutors. Italy and Hungary declined to arrest individuals subject to ICC warrants in their territory, while France, Germany and Poland implied they would do the same.

“World leaders have been far too submissive in the face of attacks on international law and the multilateral system. Their silence and inaction are inexcusable. It is morally bankrupt and will bring nothing but retreat, defeat and the erasure of decades of hard-fought human rights gains. To appease aggressors is to pour fuel on a fire that will burn us all and scorch the future for generations to come,” said Agnès Callamard.

“Some may be tempted to dismiss the system built over the last 80 years as nothing but an illusion. This is to ignore the hard-fought achievements towards the recognition of universal rights, the adoption of multiple international conventions and national laws protecting against racial discrimination and violence against women, enshrining the rights of workers and trade unions, and recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is to forget the poverty addressed, the reproductive rights strengthened and the justice delivered when states chose to uphold the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  

“The political and economic predators, and their enablers, are declaring the multilateral system dead not because it’s inefficient but because it’s not serving their hegemony and control. The response is not to proclaim it an illusion or beyond repair, but to confront its failures, end its selective application and keep transforming it so that it’s fully capable of defending all people with equal resolve.”

Ramped-up assaults on civil society spread around the world

The proliferation of attacks on civil society and social movements deepened in 2025, with sustained efforts to silence and disempower human rights defenders, organizations and dissenters spreading to almost every part of the world.

Authorities in Nepal and Tanzania were particularly brazen in their unlawful use of lethal force to repress protests expressing political and socio-economic grievances. The governments of Afghanistan, China, Egypt, India, Kenya, the USA and Venezuela, among others, also violently repressed protests, criminalized dissent through counterterrorism and security laws, or used abusive policing tactics, enforced disappearances or extrajudicial executions.

In the United Kingdom, authorities proscribed Palestine Action, a direct-action protest network primarily targeting Israeli arms manufacturers and their subsidiaries, under overly broad counterterrorism laws and arrested more than 2,700 people for peacefully opposing the ban. The UK High Court ruled this unlawful in February 2026. The government is appealing the decision.

Turkish authorities detained hundreds of peacefully protesters after the arrest of Istanbul mayor and presidential candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu, who is among over 400 people facing politically motivated prosecution under alleged corruption charges.

US authorities launched an unlawful clampdown on migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, committing unnecessary and excessive use of force, racial profiling, arbitrary detention, and practices that amounted to torture and enforced disappearance. In Latin America, states such as Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela adopted or reformed legal frameworks that impose disproportionate controls on civil society organizations directly impacting their ability to operate, access resources, support communities and defend human rights.

Many governments, facilitated by corporate actors, used spyware and digital censorship to restrict freedom of expression and the right to information. US authorities used AI-powered surveillance tools to target foreign students expressing solidarity with Palestinians with arrest and deportation. Serbia’s government used spyware and digital forensics tools against student protesters, civil society and journalists. Kenyan authorities systematically deployed technology-facilitated repression tactics, including online intimidation, threats, incitement to hatred and unlawful surveillance, to suppress youth-led protests.

The USA, Canada, France, Germany and the UK, among others, announced or enacted sweeping cuts to international aid budgets, despite knowing they would likely result in millions of avoidable deaths, and in several cases while committing to massive parallel hikes in military expenditure. This has had a catastrophic impact on NGOs’ efforts to advance press freedom, climate resilience, and gender justice, to protect refugees, migrants and asylum seekers, and to provide healthcare and sexual and reproductive rights.

Many states continued to resist reining in the aggressive tax avoidance and evasion by billionaires and corporate giants while weakening further restraints on corporate power. In the USA, strategic lawsuits against public participation had a chilling effect on civil society, with one such lawsuit resulting in a court ordering Greenpeace to pay a fossil fuel company $345 million (reduced from an initial $660 million).

In a context dominated by the US president describing climate change as a “scam”, governments did nowhere near enough to address climate displacement, equitably transition away from fossil fuels, or adequately ramp up finance for climate action – even as the UN Environment Programme warned that the world is on track to reach 3°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

“What alternative do the bullies and predators offer to the imperfect global experiment they’re so intent on destroying? The world order they propose is one that mocks and discards racial, gender and climate justice, treats civil society as an enemy, and rejects international solidarity. It is built on silencing dissent, weaponizing the law and dehumanizing those deemed ‘others’. Their vision of the world is predicated not on respect for our common humanity, but on military force, trade domination and technological hegemony. It is, ultimately, a vision with no moral compass,” said Agnès Callamard.

Protesters, civil society and international bodies lead efforts to resist, disrupt and transform

Undeterred by adversity, millions around the world are resisting injustice and authoritarian practices.

Gen Z protests swept over a dozen countries in 2025, including Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, Nepal and Peru, and around 300,000 people defied Hungary’s ban on Budapest Pride to defend LGBTI rights. Throughout early 2026, demonstrators from Los Angeles to Minneapolis have organized street by street and block by block against violent and highly militarized US immigration enforcement raids.

Mass demonstrations against Israel’s genocide spread around the world last year and humanitarians from over 40 countries launched flotillas to show solidarity with Palestinians. Global activism against the flow of arms to Israel expanded, with dockworkers in France, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Spain and Sweden seeking to disrupt arms shipment routes. Activism and legal pressure also led several states to restrict or ban arms exports to Israel.

While many governments appeased attacks on international justice, several states and bodies bucked this trend by demonstrating their commitment to multilateralism and rule of law. A growing number acknowledged that Israel was committing genocide and several states joined the Hague Group, a collective committed to holding Israel accountable for violations of international law, and contributed to South Africa’s case against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The Philippines handed former president Rodrigo Duterte over to the ICC to face charges of the crime against humanity of murder, and the court issued warrants against two Taliban leaders for gender-based persecution. The Council of Europe and Ukraine agreed to establish the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, and a hybrid court in the Central African Republic convicted six former members of an armed group for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The UN Human Rights Council established an independent investigative mechanism for Afghanistan and a fact-finding mission and Commission of Inquiry on Eastern DRC, and expanded the mandate of its fact-finding mission on Iran. Significant progress was made toward a binding UN tax convention and a Crimes Against Humanity Convention, and the ICJ and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued landmark advisory opinions affirming state human rights obligations to respond to climate damage.

More states have started speaking out against authoritarian practices and attacks on the rules-based order in 2026, with the Spanish government notably taking principled stands, but such calls must be backed up with decisive and sustained action.

“From city streets to multilateral forums, 2025 brought powerful displays of resistance and solidarity from protesters, diplomats, political leaders and many others around the world. We must build on their example and courage and forge bold coalitions to reimagine, rebuild and re-centre the global order around human rights, the rule of law and universal values,” said Agnès Callamard.

“Let 2026 be the year we assert our agency and demonstrate that history is not merely something imposed upon us; it is ours to make. And for the sake of humanity, the time to make history is now.”

MIL OSI

New Zealand’s top spies will be weighing cutting the US out of some intelligence it shares with other Five Eyes partners, a former CIA head of counterintelligence has told RNZ.

Susan Miller had a long career in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including as its head of counterintelligence. She worked under the first Trump administration, but has since retired from the agency and seen her security clearance cut off by Trump in retribution for leading a probe into the Russian influence campaign during the 2016 US Presidential election.

Miller spoke with RNZ for a new podcast, The Agency, which has just been released in partnership with Bird of Paradise Productions. The podcast examines New Zealand’s close links with the CIA through the story of a Kiwi spy who spent six years in cover for the US agency.

Miller, who described New Zealand’s intelligence community as “righteous”, said she was certain they would be weighing how much could be shared with the US under Trump.

“I’m not going to be in that room when the Five Eyes, minus America, probably sit down and say, what do we do? Do we share Russia with him? Do we? Do we even claim that we’re allies anymore when he’s doing this? What do we do? And that’s what I think is probably going on.”

It was likely they would conclude: “We can’t share everything with this guy,” she said.

“I can’t trust him, and maybe they can on some China things and things like that, but when he’s acting like this … I would think that your leadership right now would be, at a minimum, thinking to themselves, wait a minute. I might not want to share this Russian information with this ambassador here, because he’s a Trump appointee.”

Late last year the UK stopped sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it was concerned about getting bound up in potentially illegal military strikes on the boats.

Miller said she was saddened that the intelligence sharing relationship had to be curtailed but cautioned against backing out of the Five Eyes arrangement completely.

“We’re always very focused on our relationship with Five Eyes and our joint things that we do on hard targets, whether it’s terrorism or China or, you know, name something else that comes up in the day … It’s super important that we have this and I would ask them to stay as long as they can and do what they are doing, keep that door open. Don’t completely break off from us.”

During her time with the CIA, Miller said she met with then-Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern as well as senior counterparts here to discuss China.

“Your team there, it’s a very small group that works in your intelligence service. They are righteous. I mean, these guys are super smart,” Miller said.

Listen now to all six episodes of The Agency, via Spotify, Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.

In the podcast, the minister formerly in charge of New Zealand’s intelligence agencies, Andrew Little, agreed the agencies were likely to be thinking about “current conditions”.

“I think given their obligations under the New Zealand legislation – which is they’ve got to act independently, and they have to think carefully about their own legal and human rights obligations before sharing intelligence – I’d be surprised if they weren’t actively considering how they share intelligence and the current conditions.”

The “general sentiment and moves which undermine democracy” were “a cause for worry”, Little said.

“But I’m equally confident that the Five Eyes relationship will endure through that and without agencies like ours, and indeed, the other partners, compromising their principles, their requirement to respect democracy and freedom of expression and all those sorts of things. I think the Five Eyes arrangement will survive.”

A spokesman for the SIS said: “Whilst the global environment continues to be dynamic, the Five Eyes intelligence sharing partnership continues to function largely as it always has, and our relationships with our Five Eyes counterparts remains strong and enduring, regardless of political change within partner administrations.”

The Five Eyes was a “valued partnership”, with significant benefits to New Zealand.

“There are robust policies and processes in place to ensure that any cooperation New Zealand does with its Five Eyes partners, including the US, is consistent with New Zealand’s policy and legal framework, including human rights obligations.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has just written to Foreign Minister Winston Peters, urging him to put Palestine front and centre in his meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington this week.

“The escalating international crisis, which all stems from resistance to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, must be reined in, and pressure from New Zealand should be part of this” says PSNA Co-Chair Maher Nazzal.

“The US will want to recruit New Zealand into the US and Israel war on Iran, and try to get Peters to offer something crazy, like dispatching the New Zealand frigates Te Kaha and Te Mana to help force the Straits of Hormuz.”

‘But the open wound of Palestine remains the single greatest threat to peace and stability across the entire world.”

“We are urging Peters to press the US to demand equal rights for everyone living ‘between the river and the sea’”, says Nazzal.

“This means confronting the apartheid state of Israel head-on. The world can no longer tolerate a genocidal and racist state in West Asia, which is armed to the teeth by the US and hell-bent on attacking its neighbours to capture territory.”

“Israel continues to stoke the flames of hatred and eternal war by last week passing legislation to execute Palestinians convicted of what Israel calls ‘terrorism’.”

“This racist apartheid law does not apply to Jewish Israeli settlers who are killing Palestinians daily.  It exclusively applies in the Military Courts, which are only used to try Palestinians.  They have a conviction rate of over 96 percent.”

“Racist Israeli ministers and Knesset members celebrated the inflammatory racist law with champagne. There was barely a peep from Peters.”

“New Zealand has played an important role in helping resolve international conflicts in the past – we can be part of the solution now.”

Maher Nazzal
Co-Chair PSNA

MIL OSI

New Zealand has joined Australia, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom in expressing “deep concern” about an Israeli bill expanding the death penalty for Palestinians.

Winston Peters posted on social media on Wednesday night, indicating New Zealand had joined the other nations, and emphasising the country’s opposition “for decades” to the death penalty “in all circumstances”.

It comes as the Green Party tried on Wednesday to move a motion in Parliament on the issue, but failed to get the support of all parties.

The ACT party told RNZ it did not support the motion being put without notice, and noted the Minister of Foreign Affairs was responsible for expressing New Zealand’s position on international issues.

Earlier this week, the Israeli parliament finalised a controversial bill that would effectively expand the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of terrorism and nationalistic murders.

The bill stipulated that residents in the West Bank who killed an Israeli “with the intent to negate the existence of the State of Israel” would be sentenced to death.

The Foreign Ministers of Australia, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom released a joint statementexpressing their “deep concern” about the bill, saying it would “significantly expand the possibilities to impose the death penalty in Israel”.

“We are particularly worried about the de facto discriminatory character of the bill. The adoption of this bill would risk undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.

“The death penalty is an inhumane and degrading form of punishment without any deterring effect. This is why we oppose the death penalty, whatever the circumstances around the world. The rejection of the death penalty is a fundamental value that unites us.”

The statement also urged the Israeli decision makers to “abandon these plans”.

The Green party wanted to highlight the issue in parliament, and sought support from across the House to move a motion without notice.

Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick told reporters on Wednesday afternoon convention stipulated motions without notice needed prior agreement from all parties.

“This stops spurious motions going up and clogging the time of our parliament.”

The motion read that the “New Zealand House of Representatives expresses deep concern about Israel’s new legislation which extends the use of the death penalty against Palestinians living under unlawful occupation; shares the concerns of Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy about the “de facto discriminatory character’ of the legislation; and calls on the Israeli Government to reverse this legislation”.

Labour and Te Pāti Māori both told RNZ they supported the motion.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said his party would firmly support a motion in the House to condemn Israel’s use of the death penalty against Palestianians.

“It clearly discriminates against Palestinians – a point underscored by the fact that the law does not apply to Israeli extremists who commit similar crimes. There are major issues with the process including that it removes the right to an appeal. By condemning Israel, we would stand alongside the United Nations, EU and the UK.”

Te Pāti Māori told RNZ it supported the motion, and queried why other parties had not.

“This law further embeds discrimination into Israel’s justice system by allowing Palestinians to be sentenced to death while others are not subject to the same punishment for similar acts,” a spokesperson for the party said.

“It sits within the context of the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people, and the backdrop of Israel and the United States’ illegal invasion of Iran and Lebanon.”

National and New Zealand First did not respond to queries but the ACT party told RNZ it did not support the motion being put without notice.

A spokesperson for the party said it noted the Minister of Foreign Affairs was responsible for expressing New Zealand’s position on international issues, and “ACT supports that approach over symbolic motions in the House”.

“If the House passed a motion every time a country passed a law of concern, we would spend more time talking about other countries’ legislation than our own.

“All MPs have the right to put a motion on notice under Standing Orders.”

In response, Swarbrick said it was “deeply disappointing” and acknowledged the point was “symbolism”.

“I can point to many different examples when the ACT Party, for example, has put forward very similar motions, evidently for the very purpose of that same symbolism, which in turn means something on the international stage.

“It felt particularly pertinent for our country to take a stand against the perpetuation of abuse of human rights with the Israeli parliament passing the ability to effectively murder, to slaughter Palestinian hostages and prisoners.”

She said a motion on notice did not have the status of being read out in Parliament and having the backing of every single parliamentary party.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

The coronial inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attacks has been paused because of other court action.

Deputy Chief Coroner Brigitte Windley last week adjourned the second-phase inquiry, which is examining how white supremacist terrorist Brenton Tarrant came to obtain the guns used in the March 2019 massacres at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre.

“I emphasise that I do not take this step lightly; I am acutely conscious of the impact of further delays both on Interested Parties and in optimising the preventative potential of this Inquiry,” her decision said.

“At the same time, the circumstances demand that I make every effort to ensure the integrity of the criminal appeal proceedings is not undermined by the work of this Inquiry. I continue to be committed to ensuring the timely progression of the Inquiry and will revisit this decision once the [judicial review] appeal has been determined.”

Windley had sought to call Brenton Tarrant as a witness in the second-phase inquest into the deaths of the 51 people killed 15 March 2019 terror attack.

However, some victims’ families were fighting that decision – first unsuccessfully to the High Court and now in the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal was now weighing that appeal as well as a separate appeal by the terrorist against his convictions and sentence.

The 35-year-old Australian terrorist was serving a life sentence without parole but now wanted the Court of Appeal to overturn his convictions and sentence.

The terrorist claimed he was “forced” to plead guilty to 51 counts of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one of terrorism because he was irrational as a result of torturous and inhumane prison conditions.

Coroner Windley said the second-phase inquiry might create a risk of prejudice to the terrorist.

“Having regard to the risk of prejudice to Mr Tarrant and other jurisdictional challenges raised in the JR appeal in my view the interests of justice require, at least for now, the adjournment of the Second Phase of the Inquiry and inquest,” the coroner’s decision said.

The Court of Appeal heard submissions about the possibility of judicial review earlier this month.

Survivors and victims’ families made their objections to the terrorist being called as a witness heard throughout the second-phase inquest and sought judicial review at the High Court following the coroner’s ultimate decision to call him to face cross-examination.

Justice Jonathan Eaton dismissed the application in October.

Some of the victims’ families then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.

The notice of appeal claimed Justice Eaton had made several mistakes in dismissing the application for judicial review.

“The High Court erred in finding community abhorrence and the second respondent’s convictions were not proper considerations for a coroner when determining whether to call him as a witness for cross-examination at an inquest into the deaths of 51 people in relation to the 15 March 2019 Christchurch Masjidain Attack,” the notice said.

The victims’ families were appealing Justice Eaton’s entire decision.

The Court of Appeal heard the terrorist was a witness “like no other” and should not be allowed to give oral evidence at an inquest into his victims’ deaths.

Last month the court also heard the terrorist’s attempt to overturn his sentence and conviction.

The white supremacist left 51 people dead or dying in little over 15 minutes after taking an arsenal of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and incendiary devices to the mosques as worshippers marked Jumu’ah – the most significant prayer of the Muslim week – and opening fire.

The terrorist initially pleaded not guilty in June 2019 to 51 counts of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one of committing terrorism.

The Court of Appeal heard he wavered in late July 2019 and prepared to plead guilty before again changing his mind only days later.

In March 2020 he formally pleaded guilty to all charges and was jailed for life without the possibility of parole in August 2020.

The terrorist had 20 working days to file an appeal against his conviction or sentence but the “out of time” application came years later.

The Court of Appeal was now considering if it would allow the terrorist’s appeal to proceed.

Both decisions have been reserved by the Court of Appeal.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

By Aaron Blake, CNN

Analysis – Top Trump administration officials testified publicly on Thursday (NZT) for the first time since the launch of the Iran war three weeks ago.

Officials including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Kash Patel testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, where they were pressed on the administration’s often-confusing and contradictory claims about the Iran war and the underlying intelligence.

The testimony came a day after the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, became the highest-profile Trump administration official to resign over the war. Kent did so while suggesting the administration had lied about Iran posing an imminent threat.

Here’s what to know from Wednesday’s hearing:

Intel officials contradicted or failed to back up Trump’s biggest claims about the war

The biggest question going into the hearing was what these officials would say about the Trump administration’s many dubious claims about the Iran war. These officials see the intelligence after all, and they were testifying under penalty of perjury.

Wednesday (local time), they repeatedly either contradicted Trump and the administration’s claims or failed to back them up.

On Iran’s nuclear program, Trump has stated that Iran had “attempted to rebuild their nuclear program” after his June strikes on that program, and he said in his State of the Union address last month that they were “starting it all over.”

White House adviser Steve Witkoff went further, saying Iran was “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.” And the White House has cited an “imminent nuclear threat” posed by Iran.

But Gabbard in her prepared opening statement told a far different tale.

“As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer (in June), Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated,” she said. “There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.”

Gabbard notably did not read this portion of her opening statement. When pressed on why, she said it was because her “time was running long.”

When asked by Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia whether that remained the assessment of the intelligence community, she said, “Yes.”

Also in his State of the Union address, Trump claimed Iran was building intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that would “soon reach the United States of America.”

But that’s not what US intelligence has said. And Gabbard in her prepared statement reiterated a previous assessment that Iran “could use” existing technology “to begin to develop a militarily viable ICBM before 2035 should Tehran attempt to pursue that capability.” Gabbard said that assessment would be updated in light of the current war.

When Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton of Arkansas cited other analysts’ estimates that Iran could have had an ICBM “to threaten the United States in as few as six months,” Ratcliffe declined to put a date range on it.

Ratcliffe instead said Cotton was right to be concerned, and that “if left unimpeded … they would have the ability to range missiles to the continental US.”

But he did not echo the six-month timeframe – or Trump’s claim that it could be “soon.”

And lastly, Gabbard also would not back up Trump’s claim this week that no experts had predicted Iran would respond to being attacked by attacking its Gulf neighbours. In fact, Iran has spoken publicly about that possibility, and it was no secret.

When Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon asked about Trump’s claim, Gabbard avoided directly answering the question.

When pressed by Democratic Vice Chairman Mark Warner of Virginia, Gabbard said she wasn’t “aware of those remarks” and declined to say whether she briefed Trump on the possibility – citing “internal conversations.”

The very mixed signals on Iran as an ‘imminent’ threat

Perhaps the central issue is a more subjective one – whether Iran posed an “imminent” threat that warranted going to war.

The Trump administration has offered a series of different reasons why that was the case, many of which haven’t withstood scrutiny.

Kent in his resignation letter said Iran did not pose such an imminent threat. And afterward Gabbard – who before joining the administration strongly opposed war with Iran – issued a carefully worded statement in which she didn’t pass judgement on the claim herself. She instead cast it as Trump’s call to decide whether the threat was “imminent.”

But that in and of itself was remarkable – Trump’s own DNI declining to call the threat “imminent,” in the judgement of herself or the intel community.

The hearing didn’t provide too much evidence that the intelligence showed an imminent threat.

The testimony about Iran’s nuclear intentions and ICBM program didn’t suggest those were imminent threats.

When asked by Ossoff whether the intelligence showed an “imminent nuclear threat,” Gabbard responded, “The only person who can determine what is and is not a threat is the president.”

“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” Gabbard maintained.

Ossoff rejected Gabbard’s stance, saying making such independent determinations was in fact the job of the intelligence community.

In his own comments, Ratcliffe reflected on Iranian-backed attacks on Americans in the region and said it has long posed an “immediate” threat.

“I think Iran has been a constant threat to the United States for an extended period of time and posed an immediate threat at this time,” Ratcliffe said.

Ratcliffe was also asked about whether he disagreed with Kent about Iran’s capabilities, and he said, “I do.”

But the exchange largely focused not on Iranian attacks on the US homeland, but rather attacks on Americans in the Middle East, including via Iran’s proxy groups.

And none of the witnesses described Iran as an “imminent” threat to the United States, in their own words.

Democrats didn’t dwell on Kent

While Kent’s resignation was major news, the Democrats on the committee declined to lean too hard on his account.

Warner brought up Kent’s claim about there being no imminent threat early in the hearing. Later, Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas asked Ratcliffe about whether he disagreed with Kent.

But the hearing didn’t get into the nitty-gritty of Kent’s claims, including his meeting before he resigned with Gabbard and Vice President JD Vance, both of whom have also been reluctant to vocally support the Iran war.

So why did Kent get short shrift?

Part of the reason could be that Democrats were wary of aligning themselves too much with him. Kent has a history of associating with extremists on the right, and his resignation letter accused Israel of being behind not just the Iran war, but also the Iraq war and the Syrian civil war.

Trump’s allies have criticised the political left for leaning so heavily on Kent’s account.

Democrats on Wednesday seemed to reason that they could get at the crux of Kent’s resignation without invoking him personally.

Gabbard provides little clarity on Fulton County search

It’s not as current an issue as the Iran war, but Gabbard’s presence at an FBI search of a Fulton County, Georgia, elections office two months ago raised more than a few eyebrows. And given concerns about the Trump administration’s activities vis-à-vis the 2026 midterm elections, it’s likely we’ll hear more about it.

The administration struggled mightily to explain why Gabbard, whose purview generally involves foreign threats, was present at the search. The search itself was controversial, too, given the affidavit used to get the search warrant recycled a series of dubious and debunked claims about the 2020 election.

Gabbard initially said Trump sent her. But then the White House distanced itself, with Trump saying Attorney General Pam Bondi had sent Gabbard (“she went at Pam’s insistence”) and that he didn’t even know why Gabbard was there. Then Gabbard claimed both Trump and Bondi had sent her, but Bondi declined to confirm it.

The situation remained clear as mud after Wednesday’s (local time) hearing.

Gabbard reiterated that she was at the Fulton County search “at the request of the president.”

Gabbard declined to say how Trump conveyed this request to her, but she said he asked her to “help oversee” the search.

But when Warner pressed her on why Trump would be involved or even aware of an FBI search, Gabbard suggested it was possible Trump wasn’t aware of the details behind the search.

– CNN

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Hundreds of people gathered in a shady grove at the Christchurch Botanic Gardens, surrounded by bird song and the hum of cicadas, to remember one of the darkest days in the city’s history.

A formal ceremony to mark the seventh anniversary of the Christchurch mosque attacks brought together loved ones of the 51 shuhada (martyrs) killed by a white supremacist terrorist on 15 March, 2019, those injured in the attacks, first responders including representatives from Police and Hato Hone St John, members of the public and politicians.

Following a moment of silence, the names of the 51 dead were read out, interspersed with the tolling of the city’s World Peace Bell following each name.

Wreaths were later laid by dignitaries, including Mayor Phil Mauger, MPs Megan Woods and Matt Doocey, Senior Sergeant Roy Appley, who led the police communications centre on the day of the attack, and St John national youth manager Kerry Mitchell.

Many attendees gathered first at the Bridge of Remembrance, as part of the Walk the Talk for Unity event, making their way from the city centre to the gardens carrying signs and 51 prayer mats.

The Sakinah Community Trust – a not-for-profit started by seven bereaved women after the attacks – organised the Unity Week events.

Chair Dr Hamimah Ahmat said the mats represented each of those killed at prayer, but the impacts rippled across the whole community, including the families and friends of those killed, and the many injured who live with the memories every day.

“We’re not just talking about 51,” she said. “We are talking about the families of the 51, we’re talking about the friends of the 51s, the neighbours of the 51s, and then not forgetting the people who were physically injured and their families, who continue to live through and go through the memory of March 15th.”

Everyone grieves differently, Ahmat said, and would acknowledge the day in different ways.

“Alhamdulillah [thank God], we are thankful that, as people grieve and heal, more and more are starting to support this kaupapa and support this idea.”

Initially, non-Muslims struggled with how to express their sorrow over 15 March, because they feared it could be culturally inappropriate or disrespectful, Amhat said. The focus on unity and bringing people together was a key part of the Islamic tradition, and the group was happy to pave the way to remembering lost loved ones even from the depths of their grief.

“It wasn’t just Muslims that were directly impacted. In many different ways, everyone – the whole of New Zealand, including people of non-faith – were also affected and impacted by what happened to this beautiful country, by a person that they did not invite.”

She said the organisation’s Unity Summit conference had talked at length about how moving the nation forward would take many hands, including the hands and voices of young people.

In the future, Amhat hoped to see Unity Week events happening around the country, not just in Christchurch.

Australian activist Robert Martin was invited, alongside Melbourne imam Alla Elzokm, to take part in the Unity Summit and speak at the unity walk.

He said his visit had been deeply moving and he had been inspired by the resilience of the community, but he was taken aback at the lack of publicity surrounding the event.

“There’s nothing – signs, TV ads, radio ads, anything about the commemoration. I can’t believe there isn’t anything.

“These poor families need something they can go to, other than just a tombstone.”

Christchurch man Nicholas Witte took part in commemorative events for the first time, and it had been a pleasure and an honour.

“I’m here with other fellow members of my community. We’re Jewish, we want to express our wholehearted support for this.

“It’s a completely authentic expression of what we believe.

“Very early on in our historic teachings, we’re told B’tselem elohim – all human beings are made in the image of God – it’s something we take completely seriously.”

Kathleen Gallagher attended to honour the lives of two lifelong friends of her sons, who were killed in the attacks.

She said the compassionate way Ōtautahi responded to the devastating attacks was the most important thing, something the world needed more than ever.

A senior adviser at Norway’s 22nd July Centre, Anne Talsnes said images of Sunday’s march were engraved in her memory.

“Walking around with those 51 mats, it will forever stay with me.”

Talsnes – whose background was in memory studies, a multidisciplinary field that examined the politics of memory, and what societies choose to remember or not – works at the centre set up four years, after the massacre carried out by Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik in July 2011, killing 77.

There were a lot of similarities in communities that went through what our communities had gone through, she said.

Talnes said she could not yet judge how New Zealand was processing the memory of 15 March, but it stood out how the commemorations were community led and how much the faith community had taken agency over what happened to them.

“They own their own story, and they’re incredibly resilient and open-hearted.”

Norwegians had to confront many unpleasant conversations in the effort to confront the horrors of the 2011 attacks.

“We couldn’t keep just talking about the love and the unity that came out of it,” she said. “We also had to address the source and the ideology behind it, which took a long time.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Commemorations are underway in Christchurch to mark the seventh anniversary of the mosque attacks.

On 15 March 2019, Australian white supremacist Brenton Tarrant opened fire at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre as the congregations marked Jumu’ah – the most significant prayer of the week.

This year’s commemorations started with a walk-the-talk-for-unity event at the Bridge of Remembrance, organised by the Sakinah Community Trust, an organisation established by a number of the widows.

A service at the Peace Bell in the botanic gardens started with a minute’s silence, followed by the names of the 51 victims.

It will conclude with the laying of wreaths.

‘Showed the world strength, compassion and unity’ – PM

In a post on social media, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon paid tribute to those who lost their lives.

“Today we remember the 51 people who were killed in the Christchurch attacks, and we think of the families, friends, and communities who still live with that loss.

“Seven years ago, Christchurch, and New Zealand, showed the world strength, compassion and unity in the face of tragedy.

“We honour those who were taken from us by continuing to build a country where everyone can live in peace and safety,” the post said.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand