Source: Australia Government Statements – Agriculture
17 March 2025
All clients required to use the department’s Biosecurity Import Conditions System (BICON) during this planned maintenance period.
All clients submitting the below declarations:
All…
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Ogden, Associate Professor in Global Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau
Some have said Christopher Luxon’s pledge to get a free trade deal between New Zealand and India over the line in his first term as prime minister was overly optimistic. But not all trade deals are the same, and Luxon may yet get to claim bragging rights.
Already he is managing expectations, saying a “good” deal will be better than waiting a long time for a “perfect” one. And with formal negotiations confirmed not long after Luxon touched down in New Delhi, we can perhaps expect genuine movement.
At the same time, India’s negotiating style is notoriously rigid, with its bilateral investment treaty model having proved a stumbling block to deals with many other nations or blocs, including the United Kingdom and European Union.
New Zealand first held formal negotiations with India over a decade ago. But talks derailed in 2015 over the inclusion of dairy products in any agreement. We can be fairly sure this will be the compromise Luxon’s government is ready to make now.
One model might be Australia’s Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement, which leaves out dairy, too. And New Zealand was able to sign a free trade deal with China in 2008 that excluded diary, with those restrictions removed in a 2022 upgrade.
Beyond the economic implications, of course, lie domestic political calculations. Luxon needs a win to counter flatlining poll numbers and speculation about his leadership future. Good news in India offers just that.
Using diplomatic language that plays up New Zealand being part of the Indo-Pacific region – rather than the traditional Western alliance – will be essential.
New Zealand – despite its relatively small size – is still a significant regional player, with the Indo-Pacific’s fourth highest GDP per capita.
In the context of an imminent “Asian Century”, and the region becoming a crucial zone for economic and military power, New Zealand also provides a strategic pathway into the Pacific, where India is becoming increasingly involved.
All of this will influence Luxon’s keynote address today at the 10th Raisina Dialogue, India’s flagship multilateral conference on global politics and economics. He is the first leader not governing a European country to make such a speech, and is also the chief guest at the dialogue.
Luxon is already on the record as saying New Zealand and India are “very aligned” on Indo-Pacific security and concerns over Chinese regional influence, with scope for more joint defence exercises. This linkage between security and trade mirrors Wellington’s recent relations with Beijing, which have become increasingly difficult to navigate.
But there is a long way to go. In 2024, India-New Zealand trade was worth a combined NZ$3.14 billion – a fraction of the $208.46 billion generated by trade with China in the same year.
Nevertheless, Luxon and his ministers have made undeniable progress. His “recalibration of a relationship that has long been neglected” bore fruit in October last year when he met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the ASEAN summit, and the countries announced their intention to take the relationship to “greater heights”.
The previous Labour government helped set the scene with a succession of high-level diplomatic visits and parliamentary exchanges. In 2023, the Indian government described relations with New Zealand as having “an upward trajectory”.
And there are clearly good foundations to build on – especially the 292,000 people of Indian ethnicity in New Zealand, who contribute US$10 billion to the New Zealand economy.
Trade is ripe for expansion, too. New Zealand primarily exports wool, iron and steel, aluminium, fruits and nuts, wood pulp and recovered paper, and imports Indian pharmaceuticals, machinery, precious metals and stones, textiles, vehicles and clothing.
There’s potential to grow trade with India in tourism (especially attractive to India’s growing middle class), and collaboration on space technology, renewable energy and agritech.
There were 8,000 Indian students in New Zealand last year, a number that may well grow given a relative drop in student numbers from China. With the US and UK becoming more hostile to immigration, New Zealand can offer a relatively safe and tolerant alternative.
In many ways, India is the new China. In 2023, India’s GDP was US$14.54 trillion, making it the world’s fourth largest economy. New Delhi is on the cusp of becoming a great power, and is being courted by all countries, big and small.
As such, while Luxon has momentum on a trade deal, he is also part of a long queue. Given the relative power imbalance between the two countries, the weight of expectation sits squarely on his shoulders.
Chris Ogden is a Senior Research Fellow with The Foreign Policy Centre, London.
– ref. Luxon meets Modi: why a ‘good’ NZ-India trade deal is preferable to a ‘perfect’ one – https://theconversation.com/luxon-meets-modi-why-a-good-nz-india-trade-deal-is-preferable-to-a-perfect-one-252036
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
VIENNA, March 16 — A Chinese business delegation, organized by the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT), visited Austria from March 13 to 16.
It has been the first large-scale Chinese delegation to visit Austria since the establishment of the new Austrian government.
Businesses from both sides had in-depth exchanges on industries including automobile, agriculture and food processing, and reached multiple cooperation intentions.
During the visit, Ren Hongbin, chairman of the CCPIT, made extensive interactions with local political and business representatives and those of relevant UN agencies, highlighting that China stands ready to work with all parties to enhance economic and trade cooperation and promote the stability and smooth flow of global industrial and supply chains.
Representatives of the Austrian business community expressed their willingness to strengthen cooperation with the Chinese business community and jointly oppose trade protectionism, and they hoped that more Chinese enterprises will invest and do business in Austria.
Source: New South Wales Premiere
A Sydney man has been hit with a $473,000 fine after being found guilty of more than 40 breaches involving unlicensed and uninsured residential building work for four consumers in 2022.
Anthony Abi-Merhi, a sole trader business operating under the name “Triscapes” quoted one consumer $99,500 for a job which ended up costing the consumer $142,000.
During the investigation, Building Commission NSW identified offences including unlicensed work, excessive deposits, and work undertaken without Home Building Compensation Fund insurance.
He was also found guilty of 27 charges of demanding or receiving payment for building without insurance, while carrying out landscaping work in south-western Sydney.
In NSW, a licence or certificate is required to do any residential building work, including general building work valued at more than $5,000 in labour and materials.
This includes construction, repairs, renovating or decorating a property.
For contracts valued at more than $5,000 the maximum deposit to cover labour and materials is 10 per cent.
Home Building Compensation Fund Insurance is required for projects valued at more than $20,000 and contractors must obtain this cover before starting any work or accepting any payments including deposits.
This insurance provides a safety net for consumers facing incomplete or defective work in certain circumstances.
The defendant has 28 days to exercise a right to appeal in respect of the sentence.
For more information on choosing the right tradesperson for the job visit the Step by step guide to choosing the right tradesperson or builder webpage.
To check a contractor’s name or licence number visit the Verify Licence website.
To access the Contract checklist visit the Fair Trading website.
Quotes attributable to Minister for Building Anoulack Chanthivong:
“This serious $470,000 fine for unlicensed building work sends a clear message to builders – the Minns Government is serious about eradicating cowboys and shonks from the NSW home construction industry.
“Building Commission NSW inspectors are now out in force and will come down hard on those caught doing the wrong thing.
“Consumers should only engage a contractor once they have researched their credentials including by looking them up on the Verify Licence website, to make sure their licence is valid and whether the licence has any conditions or regulatory issues attached to it.
“You can also check user ratings online from other consumers who have used the trader, and make sure you use the handy Contract Checklist page on the Fair Trading website before signing a contract and paying any money.”
Source: New South Wales Premiere
Today I am announcing changes to the Cabinet and the Ministry of the NSW Government.
The Hon John Graham MLC will remain the Special Minister of State, the Minister for the Arts, the Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy and will permanently take on the role of Minister for Transport
The Hon Jenny Aitchison MP will become the Minister for Roads and the Minister for Regional Transport. Regional roads will now be incorporated into the Roads portfolio. As a regional MP Jenny Aitchison is well placed to ensure the needs of regional and rural communities are met.
John Graham will continue to take carriage of the Government’s response to the toll review given the Government is mid-negotiation with toll companies about reforming the system.
The Hon Steve Kamper MP will be sworn in as the Minister for Jobs and Tourism, in addition to his responsibilities as the Minister for Lands and Property, the Minister for Multiculturalism and the Minister for Sport.
The Minns Labor Government is proud to welcome Janelle Saffin into the NSW Cabinet, to be sworn in as the Minister for Recovery, the Minister for Small Business, and the Minister for the North Coast.
Janelle is one of the most experienced MPs in the NSW Government. She has been instrumental in helping the Lismore community and surrounds recover from the 2022 floods as well as the recent impacts from Ex Tropical Cyclone Alfred.
She has intimate knowledge of the workings of the NSW Reconstruction Authority and will be a very strong advocate and voice for the North Coast as well as small businesses across the state.
Emily Suvaal will also be appointed as the Parliamentary Secretary for Trade and Small Business.
Parliamentary Secretaries perform an important role in supporting Ministers and driving action to deliver on government priorities in Parliament and Emily is an excellent addition to the team.
These are important changes to the NSW Ministry that will ensure we continue to invest in essential services that people rely on, and build a better NSW.
Source: Minister for Trade
The Albanese Labor Government is rolling out larger grants for Australian exporters to help them take on the world through the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) program.
Since the most recent grant round opened in November 2024, the government has delivered over $74 million in grant agreements to over 700 Australian exporters.
The average value of grant agreements executed in the most recent round has risen to $53,000. This is more than double the average grant amount for businesses than was provided under the former coalition government.
When we came to government, it was clear that the declining size of grants significantly reduced the value of the program for our exporters. We have worked to improve the program, so that exporters have greater support and the program is more effective.
Since its inception in 1974, the EMDG program has supported more than 51,000 Australian businesses to market their products and services in over 180 countries. It is administered by the Australian Trade and Investment Commission.
The government is committed to continuously improve businesses’ experience in applying for EMDG, and has appointed Mr Timothy Yeend to conduct the next independent review in accordance with section 106A of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997.
Mr Yeend is trade expert with over 30 years’ experience working on trade and international business issues. He is a current board member of Tourism Australia and former Associate Secretary at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. His knowledge of trade and what support export businesses need to compete on the global stage, coupled with his experience in government, will provide a solid foundation for this legislative review.
Consultations will commence in May 2025, with the final report to be provided to government by November 2025, in accordance with legislative timeframes.
Source: Australian Department of Revenue
All new Child Care Subsidy (CCS) provider approval applicants will need to supply a statement of tax record (STR) to the Australian Government Department of EducationExternal Link. Some existing providers may also be asked to provide an STR. The Department of Education will notify those existing providers who will require an STR.
The STR demonstrates your satisfactory engagement with the tax system and is required when applying to administer CCS.
To apply for an STR, use our online services. After you submit your application, you’ll get a receipt and your STR within 4 business days.
Taking these steps will help you resolve any tax issues with us before applying for your STR.
We have tailored communication channels for medium, large and multinational businesses, to keep you up to date with updates and changes you need to know.
Read more articles in our online Business bulletins newsroom.
Subscribe to our free:
Source: Ministry for Primary Industries
Source: South Africa News Agency
Sunday, March 16, 2025
Deputy President Paul Mashatile will on Sunday undertake a working visit to Tokyo, in Japan.
The Presidency said the visit, from 16 – 19 March 2025, is aimed at “reaffirming the strong cooperation between” the countries in areas of mutual interest.
“The two countries enjoy well established diplomatic relations, and the year 2025 marks 115 years of such relations. The working visit by the Deputy President underscores South Africa’s strong commitment and the importance that South Africa attaches to the relationship with Japan.
“During the working visit, the Deputy President and his delegation will meet with the Japanese Government and private sector stakeholders to advance South Africa’s key economic growth drivers, such as manufactured-led growth and increasing South Africa’s exports,” the Presidency said in a statement on Saturday.
The Deputy President will be accompanied by Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Tandi Moraka; Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture, Gayton McKenzie, Minister of Higher Education, Dr Nobuhle Nkabane; Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen, Trade Industry and Competition Minister, Parks Tau; and Science, Technology and Innovation Deputy Minister, Nomalungelo Gina. – SAnews.gov.za
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Aisha Ahmad, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto
Prime Minister Mark Carney has vowed Canada will never be a 51st American state and has called on Canada to present a united front to defend against United States President Donald Trump’s escalating attacks on Canada’s economy and sovereignty.
Most Canadians are already on board. Provincial premiers have committed to defending against tariffs, and recent polling data shows 85 per cent of Canadians resolutely reject Trump’s threats of annexation.
Yet, despite this widespread patriotism, some Canadians may have a relative or friend in the contrarian 10 per cent of citizens who welcome annexation.
Why do these people support Trump?
The answer has less to do with politics or economic frustration than it does psychology. The reason some Canadians are reacting positively to Trump’s threats is because cognitive biases often prevent human beings from accurately assessing shocks to their security environment.
Psychological biases are well-researched in international security scholarship, and I have witnessed their consequences first-hand in my work in conflict zones.
From peacekeepers to politicians to ordinary civilians, I have seen how cognitive biases can cause rational, intelligent people to ignore valuable evidence, even at great peril.
Humans often react to unsettling evidence by denying, minimizing or re-interpreting the information to restore their cognitive ease. Everyone in a conflict-prone part of the world experiences cognitive distortions and denial at some point. Psychological security often overrides physical security.
But these biases are dangerous. They undermine decision-making, slow down reaction times and cause people to believe dangerous things that make them unsafe.
The tricky part is that challenging a person’s denial can provoke defensiveness, even rage. But allowing denial to persist leaves them dangerously unprepared to face real-world threats.
On balance, the safer choice is to rip off these psychological Band-aids.
Except for a small percentage of extremists, the 10 per cent who are in favour of American annexation are ordinary Canadians. What makes them different are two interrelated cognitive biases: confirmation bias and belief perseverance.
For Canadians who hold Trump in high esteem, acknowledging his threats creates cognitive dissonance. Some people find dissonance so distressing that it feels easier to reject or reinterpret the contrary information in a way that protects prior-held ideas and restores cognitive ease.
These confirmation biases allow the 10 per cent to redefine the word “annexation” to mean something else, such as peaceful political unification. That imagined definition turns Trump’s threat into a friendly proposal leading to greater prosperity and security.
That reinterpretation may reduce psychological distress, but it’s delusional.
Political unification is a non-coercive and consent-based process, wherein parties agree to incorporation through referendum, typically producing an all new government. Trump is proposing unilateral annexation, which is the hostile and illegal seizure of a sovereign state’s territory and the subjugation of its population.
Annexation is not marriage. It’s rape.
Unilateral annexation is so inherently violent that its prohibition in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter is considered the legal cornerstone of the post-Second World War international order.
As Trump, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping each champion annexing nearby sovereign nations in the name of greatness, that international order is now crumbling. If the laws, norms and institutions preventing annexation collapse, it opens the door to invasions, insurgencies and even global war.
Read more:
Why annexing Canada would destroy the United States
Many of the 10 per cent are simply unaware of what “annexation” truly means, and could rationally change their position once they understand the facts. But a smaller subset of that group may reject the evidence entirely.
Belief perseverance causes some people to aggressively hold their original position, even when presented with disconfirming evidence.
While denial helps them feel safe in the moment, it also makes them dangerously unprepared to deal with real threats.
Patriotic “elbows up” Canadians must also be wary of denial. For them, the issue is not identifying the threats, but comprehending their full implications.
Even among informed citizens, NATO, NORAD and the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance are not easy to relate to. Trade wars show up on grocery bills, but these defence organizations keep peace in the background, which is harder to notice.
Canadians may intellectually understand that North American security is deteriorating, but that crisis may not seem as real as tariffs.
This is called “normalcy bias,” a psychological tendency to minimize the probability of threats or the dangers they pose, which delays protective action. Normalcy and optimism biases are why many people fail to evacuate quickly when they are forewarned about wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes and even wars.
Slow reactions are not caused by stupidity or laziness. Research shows that the majority people respond inefficiently to warnings of forthcoming disasters. I have witnessed this bias in conflict zones and even experienced its effects myself. I can run 10 kilometres in about an hour, but when the Taliban attacked a bazaar less than 10 kilometres from my flat, it still felt far away.
Why? Because security threats don’t feel close until your windows start to shake.
While a military invasion is not imminent, Trump’s threats are so extreme that they warrant immediate action to improve Canadian defence. The time to take protective action is before windows start shaking.
For the majority of Canadians who already take Trump’s threats seriously, the first step in countering the normalcy bias is to pay attention to new risks and fractures in existing security co-operation.
With that evidence, they can initiate a national conversation about how to reduce vulnerabilities and improve resilience and defence.
There is no time to argue with people who remain cognitively confused. The majority of Canadians are ready to have a laser-focused discussion about the real security challenges on the horizon.
The good news is that Canada can fortify its security and deter threats in this perilous new world.
The range of options may not be as comfortable as the bygone era of friendly alliances and NATO supremacy. But through intelligent debate, Canadians can develop realistic new approaches to national defence, and quickly.
Acceptance and adaptation are the keys to survival.
Aisha Ahmad receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
– ref. Why some Canadians are in denial about Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/why-some-canadians-are-in-denial-about-donald-trump-251893
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Anthony Sanfilippo, Professor of Medicine (Cardiology), Queen’s University, Ontario
While politicians tout the benefits of reducing interprovincial trade barriers to unlock prosperity amid escalating trade tensions, our most precious health-care resources — fully qualified doctors — remain shackled. Physicians face a maze of regulations when attempting to practise beyond their home province. We must break these chains.
By 2026, 4.4 million Ontarians — one in four residents — will lack access to family doctors. The crisis extends nationwide, with projections showing 9.6 million Canadians could be without a family physician by 2034. And our existing doctors are stretched thin, with the average family physician seeing 18 per cent fewer patients annually compared to a decade ago.
It’s mystifying why Canada still struggles with the question of whether a doctor licensed in one province should be automatically qualified to practice in others. In October 2023, federal, provincial and territorial health ministers committed to “advancing labour mobility” for health-care professionals.
The Atlantic provinces launched a multi-jurisdictional licensing system in May 2023, allowing doctors to practice in all four Atlantic provinces for an additional annual fee. However, this licence is not accepted outside of Atlantic Canada, and no other provinces have such agreements: current legislation requires separate licensing in each province.
This uncertainty persists despite the critical shortage of physician services, especially for emergency department coverage and unexpected practice vacancies.
Inter-provincial restrictions undermine the efforts of overworked physicians to arrange coverage for temporary leaves. Such breaks could significantly enhance doctors’ personal well-being and extend their longevity in practice, ultimately benefiting holistic patient care while boosting Canadians’ access to physicians.
Is there a legitimate rationale, grounded in differences in training or competence, for inter-provincial barriers?
Canada has 17 excellent medical schools with campuses in nine provinces (soon expanding to 20 covering all provinces). Although curricula and learning schemes vary according to individual philosophies and available resources, all are united by a shared vision. These institutions strive to equip students with a core set of physician competencies, ensuring graduates excel based on common educational objectives.
Canadian medical schools are inter-connected and collaborative. They share their approaches, discuss educational innovations, and engage common challenges. Medical student societies participate in collaborative activities to support knowledge sharing in clinical education.
Graduates of Canadian medical schools face the same qualifying examinations, established by the Medical Council of Canada. Success in these exams is required for entry to practice in all provinces and territories. Graduates apply to the same postgraduate residency programs, which are pan-Canadian. A graduate of an Ontario school interested in a career in family medicine, for example, is free to apply to training programs in any province without prejudice.
Those training programs operate under the guidance of national colleges that set pan-Canadian standards for training. All programs are expected to deliver the same training and meet the same standards, regardless of location. All medical schools and training programs are accredited by the same, pan-Canadian processes based on common, and extensive, criteria.
All this national commonality exists because (with some regional variability in prevalence) people are afflicted with similar medical problems wherever they reside. And so, the practice of medicine should be guided by consistent, high standards. Canadians, regardless of where they live in our country, deserve to be assured that their doctors are exceptionally well trained and qualified.
Why, then, are doctors with identical training and qualifications confined to practising in just one province or territory? The answer lies not in medical competence, but in bureaucracy. Despite national standards for training and qualification, the power to grant a licence rests with 13 separate provincial and territorial regulatory colleges. This fragmented system creates artificial barriers, limiting the mobility of our highly skilled physicians across Canada.
This is not to dismiss the important work of these provincial and territorial colleges. They are responsible for ensuring that the doctors working within their jurisdictions have completed appropriate training, achieved qualifications and maintained competence. Importantly, they are also responsible for investigating and assessing any potential breaches of competence or professionalism.
In calling for common pan-Canadian credentialing, the physician community is not suggesting the important role of provincial and territorial colleges be set aside or in any way diminished. Rather, those critical processes should be either centralized or shared reciprocally. Public protection from doctors who are disciplined or sanctioned can be accelerated through pan-Canadian licensure: the public could search physician sanctions through one online portal, not 13.
Regulation must be assessed against its purpose. If the purpose is public protection and advancing a high quality and equitable health-care system, then a doctor in good standing who lives and practises in Ontario should be able to take up emergency room shifts or cover a colleague’s practice in Manitoba without having to restart and reinvest in another lengthy, time-consuming and expensive registration process.
Pan-Canadian licensure can improve health-care access in underserved areas and increase flexibility for physicians. Canadian-trained doctors should be allowed to practice where they are qualified and needed, and that’s in Canada — all of it.
Neil Seeman, co-founder of Sutherland House Experts, is the publisher of “The Doctors We Need: Imagining a New Path for Physician Recruitment, Training, and Support” by Dr. Anthony Sanfilippo.
Anthony Sanfilippo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Why Canadian-trained doctors should be allowed to practise anywhere in Canada without additional licensing – https://theconversation.com/why-canadian-trained-doctors-should-be-allowed-to-practise-anywhere-in-canada-without-additional-licensing-251672
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
Cyclone Alfred will cost the March 25 budget at least A$1.2 billion, hit growth and put pressure on inflation, Treasurer Jim Chalmers says.
In a Tuesday speech previewing the budget, Chalmers will also say that on preliminary estimates, the cyclone’s immediate hit to GDP is expected to be up to $1.2 billion, which could wipe a quarter of a percentage point off quarterly growth.
“It could also lead to upward pressure on inflation. From building costs to damaged crops raising prices for staples like fruit and vegetables,” Chalmers says in the speech, an extract of which has been released ahead of delivery.
The treasurer says the temporary shutting of businesses due to the cyclone lost about 12 million work hours.
By last Thursday, 44,000 insurance claims had been lodged. Early modelling indicated losses covered by the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool were about $1.7 billion.
The estimated costs to the budget, which are over the forward estimates period, are preliminary.
The government has already co-sponsored with the states $30 million in support for immediate recovery costs, Chalmers says. Millions of dollars are being provided in hardship payments.
“The budget will reflect some of those immediate costs and we’ll make sensible provisions for more to come,” he says.
“I expect that these costs and these new provisions will be in the order of at least $1.2 billion […] and that means a big new pressure on the budget.”
This is in addition to the already budgeted for disaster relief.
“At MYEFO, we’d already booked $11.6 billion for disaster support nationally over the forward estimates.
“With all of this extra funding we expect that to rise to at least $13.5 billion when accounting for our provisioning, social security costs and other disaster related support.”
Chalmers will again argue in the speech his recent theme – that the economy has turned a corner. This is despite the global uncertainty that includes the Trump tariff policies, the full extent of which is yet to be spelled out.
Australia is bracing for the possibility our beef export trade could be caught in a new tariff round to be unveiled early next month.
Despite last week’s rebuff to its efforts to get an exemption from the aluminium and steel 25% tariffs, the government has vowed to fight on for a carve out from that, as well as trying to head off any further imposts on exports to the US.
In seeking the exemption, Australia was unsuccessful in trying to leverage its abundance of critical minerals, which are much sought after by the US.
Trade Minister Don Farrell told Sky on Sunday:
What we need to do is find out what it is that the Americans want in terms of this relationship between Australia and the United States and then make President Trump an offer he can’t refuse.
In Tuesday’s speech, Chalmers is expected to say the budget will contain fewer surprises than might be the case with other budgets.
This is because this budget – which would have been avoided if the cyclone had not ruled out an April 12 election – comes after the flurry of announcements already made this year and before further announcements in the campaign for the May election.
Those announcements already made include:
$8.5 billion to boost Medicare
$644 million for new Urgent Care Clinics
a multi-billion dollar package to save Whyalla Steelworks
$7.2 billion for the Bruce Highway and other infrastructure
funds for enhanced childcare and to provide some
student debt relief
new and amended listings for contraception, endometriosis and IVF on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Deloitte Access Economics in its budget monitor predicts the budget will have a deficit of $26.1 billion for 2024-25.
Deloitte’s Stephen Smith said that although a $26.1 billion deficit was slightly smaller than forecast in the December budget update, the longer-term structural deterioration should be “a reality check for politicians wanting to announce election sweeteners in the weeks ahead”.
Deloitte projects a deficit of nearly $50 billion in 2025-26.
Over the weekend, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took part in the “coalition of the willing” virtual meeting convened by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in support of Ukraine.
The meeting also included Ukraine, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Greece, Italy, Poland, Bulgaria, the Scandinavian countries, Canada and New Zealand. The United States did not participate. President Donald Trump is trying to force an agreement between Ukraine and Russia to end the conflict.
Albanese reiterated after the meeting: “Australia is open to considering any requests to contribute to a future peacekeeping effort in support of the just and lasting peace we all want to Ukraine”.
He added the obvious point: “Of course, peacekeeping missions by definition require a precondition of peace”.
Albanese said that any Australian contribution to a Ukraine peacekeeping force would be “small”.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has opposed sending Australians to a peacekeeping force.
Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Peter Dutton on why he’s not Australia’s Trump – ‘I’m my own person’
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Cyclone Alfred to cost budget $1.2 billion, hit growth and push up inflation: Chalmers – https://theconversation.com/cyclone-alfred-to-cost-budget-1-2billion-hit-growth-and-push-up-inflation-chalmers-252171
Source: New Zealand Government
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay today announced New Zealand and India have formally launched negotiations on a Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement.
Mr McClay held extensive discussions with his Indian counterpart Piyush Goyal in New Delhi today, where they agreed to launch negotiations.
“This announcement is a major breakthrough in the economic relationship between India and New Zealand,” Christopher Luxon says.
“When we came into Government 16 months ago, we made it clear that closer economic ties with India was a key priority.
“Currently the fifth-largest economy in the world, with a population of 1.4 billion people, India holds significant potential for New Zealand and will play a pivotal role in doubling New Zealand’s exports by value over the next ten years.
“This announcement comes off the back of a major lift in political engagement with India. Todd McCay has visited five times and had eight meetings with his Indian counterpart. Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has also visited, and I had a highly productive meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi last year.
A Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement is only one part of the Government’s commitment to stepping up all facets of the New Zealand-India relationship.
Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay says alongside trade agreement negotiations, New Zealand will continue to invest in stronger, deeper, more sustainable connections with India across all pillars of the relationship, including our political, defence and security, sporting, environmental, and people-to-people connections.
“One in four Kiwi jobs rely on trade and last year our export revenue added $100 billion to the economy. Strong agreements and relationships like this ensure every New Zealander has good job opportunities, higher wages and access to world-class public services,” Mr McClay says.
Negotiations will start next month.
Source: Minister for Trade
Andrew Clennell: The Trade Minister, Don Farrell, joins me now from Adelaide. Don Farrell, thanks for your time. You’re due to talk to the US Trade Ambassador tomorrow.
Minister for Trade: Pleased to be with you.
Andrew Clennell: And you spoke at two o’clock Friday morning to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. How did your chat with Mr Lutnick go and what are you hoping to achieve with Mr Greer?
Minister for Trade: Look, Andrew, I did speak with Commerce Secretary Lutnick. That’s the second contact we’ve had with one another since he just recently was appointed to that position. I obviously expressed my disappointment that we had not been able to reach an agreement over the suspension of tariffs on steel and aluminium. But I did say that there’s obviously a further review, and you’ve talked about some of the issues that potentially arise, that the U.S. Government is undertaking by the early part of April. I indicated to him that we want to continue to talk with them. I find that discussion is the best way to resolve these issues. Not retaliatory tariffs, but discussion. What we need to do, Andrew, is find out what it is that the Americans want in terms of this relationship between Australia and the United States and then make President Trump an offer he can’t refuse.
Andrew Clennell: And did Howard Lutnick give you any indication of what they might be after? Because obviously you offered them some form of critical minerals deal. Did he give any, any ray of light you had a chance? I mean, I think you’ve said that President Trump allowed Australia or the Prime Minister to believe there was a chance when there wasn’t. Has he given you any suggestion there’s a chance, or was he holding the line and saying, look, this is our America First policy, that’s it.
Minister for Trade: Look, it wasn’t a pessimistic conversation, I’m pleased to say, Andrew. but look, he gave, you know, no assurances about what might happen in the next round of negotiations. Our job is to sit down and continue to talk. I think the important thing here to understand, Andrew, is that when President Trump, in his first iteration, gave Australia an exemption to Prime Minister Turnbull, it was one of over 30 exemptions that the United States gave to a range of countries around the world. So, more than 30 countries, including most of our competitors in the American market, were able to get an exemption. On this occasion, not one country, not one country got an exemption on either steel or aluminium. Now, that’s obviously, we think that’s bad news. We think it’s bad news, obviously, for the companies that trade in Australia with the United States. It’s also bad news for the Americans because what that has done is simply pushed up the price of steel and aluminium in the US market and that has to have an impact both on, on inflation and on jobs. So, part of my job is to continue to put the arguments to the Americans that in fact, this is the wrong policy to adopt. We should actually be doing the opposite. We should be making more free trade, more fair trade, rather than less trade.
And of course, one of the things that we’ve done in government is diversify our trading relationship. So, we have new agreements with the United Kingdom, we’ve got new agreements with India. I think we’re just about to get another offer from the Indians to even expand our trading relationship with India. We’ve signed a new agreement with the United Arab Emirates. This is like dealing with the Woolies warehouse of the Middle East. If you can get your products into the United Arab Emirates, then you can get it all around the Middle East. On Tuesday night, I spoke with my Korean counterpart, Mr. Ahn, and we’ve got identical problems with the United States. Of course, they sell a lot more steel into the United States than we do. But we are talking about how we can expand our relationship with Korea so that we can sell more product into Korea.
So, it’s a two-pronged approach. Andrew, we are continuing the discussions with the United States. We’ll continue to discuss. We’re not going down the track of some countries in applying retaliatory tariffs. I don’t think that will work, it hasn’t worked for any other country, why would it work for us? We want to explain our position and we want to get those exemptions for Australian companies because it’s good for prosperity in the United States, but it’s also good for prosperity in Australia.
Andrew Clennell: Well, I think you’ve got Buckley’s chance of arguing free and fair trade to the Trump administration, to be frank Minister, but what’s the worst-case scenario here? What’s the worst-case scenario? $30 billion, our exports to the U.S. Could we lose it all?
Minister for Trade: Look, I don’t believe so, Andrew. And just on that first point you made, Buckley’s chance. When I came to this job three years ago, we had $20 billion worth of trade bans in China. People told me, look, you will never, never, ever get that trade back. At the end of last year, the last of the products that had been subject to those trade impediments, namely crayfish, we got back into China. And since then, in the first month of that new trade, we got $188 million of crayfish sold into China. You can reverse these decisions, Andrew, so, don’t give up on us just yet. You can get countries to realise. You can get countries if you keep talking to them and you keep making your arguments, which is exactly what I intend to do. If you keep making your arguments, you can in fact convince countries that the policies that they are adopting are in fact counterproductive, just as they were with China.
Andrew Clennell: Okay, but what’s the worst-case scenario? What’s the worst-case scenario here?
Minister for Trade: Look, I wish I could tell you exactly what the American Government is finally going to do. To be honest with you, I suspect they don’t even know themselves right now. They’re conducting this review. They’re conducting the review in respect of every single trade agreement they have. It’s not just Australia, it’s every country. And my job in the discussions that go on in this coming week and in the weeks ahead is to get the best result for Australian producers, and that’s what I intend to do. And it’ll only be by reaching out, by having discussions, by putting our point of view that we’re going to get an acceptable outcome here.
Andrew Clennell: In any of these discussions, do you talk about the prospect of a phone call between Prime Minister Albanese and President Trump?
Minister for Trade: Oh, that’s way above my pay grade, I’m afraid, Andrew.
Andrew Clennell: Is it though? Kevin Rudd asks.
Minister for Trade: Well, he’s the ambassador, of course he asks, and that’s the job of the ambassador to do that representation on behalf of the Australian Prime Minister.
Andrew Clennell: How many times has he asked, do you know?
Minister for Trade: No, I don’t know the answer to that question, Andrew. But you know, we were amongst the first countries to ring President Trump when he was elected and congratulated him. The Prime Minister did that. And we of course got a second phone call with him to express our concerns about the direction that he was taking in respect of tariffs.
To the best of my knowledge, we were the only country in the world where he said, I’m going to give some consideration to not applying these tariffs to you. Now, I know we didn’t get the exemption in the end, but we were the only country that at least got him to say, look, we’re going to give some consideration to this. Ultimately, the consideration was that they would not do it.
As I’ve said on Sky previously, the people around President Trump, particularly Mr. Navarro, I think, were determined that they weren’t going to go down the track that they went down last time. So, I mentioned before over 30 countries got exemptions for steel and aluminium. They were determined, the people around President Trump were determined not to go down that track again. They were going to apply the tariffs, the 25 per cent tariffs, and no country was going to get an exemption. But look, we will continue to talk. As I said, I’ve spoken to Commerce Secretary Lutnick on Friday morning, tomorrow US time, so, Tuesday morning, I think 7:30, I’m going to have my conversation with Jamieson Greer. We’re going to work out firstly what it is that the Americans want out of this arrangement, because it’s still not clear to me what it is that they are seeking. But once we find that out, we’ll work through this issue and we’ll work through it in Australia’s national interest.
Andrew Clennell: Why haven’t you been to the US, yourself?
Minister for Trade: Look, can I say this, Andrew, modern communications these days, a telephone call, a video conference, which is what I’ll be doing with Jamieson Greer, Ambassador Greer, on Tuesday, we’re getting our message across. After that first conversation between President Trump and Prime Minister Albanese, we embarked on a course of action which was determined in consultation with the officials in the United States about how best to progress our concerns about the introduction or the reintroduction of tariffs. We followed that. We followed that course of action and we followed it until last Wednesday when it became clear that the Americans were not going to give us an exemption. So, we had a plan. We had a plan for how we deal with this issue. We were hopeful, certainly based on early discussions, that we would get a successful result here. In the event that that didn’t happen. But we’re not giving up. We’re continuing the talks. And in fact, in lots of ways, the talks will be beefed up in the weeks and the months ahead as we try and resolve all of these issues, but these are not easy issues, Andrew.
Andrew Clennell: No, they’re not. But Peter Dutton says you haven’t got the relationships. He’s pointed the finger at Kevin Rudd. The suggestion is Albanese, the Prime Minister, was seen as too close to Joe Biden. Penny Wong found out from the media that this had occurred. What do you say to all that? I mean, his contention as we go into an election campaign is their government would have better luck with the US Administration. What do you say to that?
Minister for Trade: Look, Peter Dutton couldn’t go two rounds with a revolving door Andrew. What happened? When we came to government, there were $20 billion worth of tariffs and trade impediments with the Chinese. If Peter Dutton’s so good at building relationships and solving problems, they didn’t get a cent, they didn’t get a cent or a single tariff removed in that previous three years in government. We got the best result or the best response of any country in the world. We got a consideration by the President to review these tariffs. Now ok, it didn’t ultimately result in us getting the tariffs removed and we accept that. We accept that situation. I’d ask your listeners, who do you think is going to be better to negotiate with the United States? Somebody with a proven record of getting results or somebody, when they had the opportunity to get some results, did nothing. Did nothing. They did nothing.
Andrew Clennell: What would a tariff do to the beef industry?
Minister for Trade: It would certainly have a clearly a negative impact. The United States I think is, if it’s not the largest export market for our beef industry, it would have a significant impact. We are expanding our beef exports, our beef exports right now thanks to the Albanese Labor Government, are the best that they’ve ever been. We’re exporting more beef than we ever have. The significance, of course to the United States about our beef exports is that most of it goes into McDonald’s hamburgers. And if you push up the price of those beef exports by 25 per cent or 10 per cent or whatever the figure is, then you simply push up the price of hamburgers in the United States. It doesn’t make any sense, Andrew. It doesn’t make any sense at all.
Andrew Clennell: Sure.
Minister for Trade: You want to be pushing prices down. You don’t want to be pushing them up.
Andrew Clennell: Indeed. There’s also speculation the trade war could harm the PBS somehow and cause pharmaceutical prices to go up. How would that occur and what do you make of that speculation?
Minister for Trade: Well, it simply is speculation. That’s all it is, Andrew. I’ve not heard one comment from any person in the United States that refers to the PBS. We’ve got a terrific health system. We’re continuing to improve all the time. Minister Butler is always coming up with new ideas to improve our health system. The PBS is an essential part of our health system and there will be absolutely nothing that the Americans can do to impact on our health system or the PBS system. And we certainly, we certainly would not contemplate doing anything at any stage that makes our health system more expensive. We want to put downward pressure on the cost of health and we’re going to continue to do that, especially if we get re-elected in a few weeks’ time.
Andrew Clennell: It’s been reported the deal that Australia put on the table was access to our critical minerals like lithium, manganese, what’s the nature of that deal? Presumably America would still have to pay for the minerals. Would they get the minerals at a cheaper rate? Would they have the first right of refusal on the minerals? What are the minerals to be used for? Making mobile phones, electric cars and the like?
Minister for Trade: Yeah, look, Australia is very fortunate in the sense that we have either the largest or the second largest reserves of all critical minerals and rare earths in the world. Now, critical minerals are different from other minerals. If you go up to the Pilbara, you can see iron ore as far as the eye can see, Andrew. Critical minerals tend to be in much smaller deposits and they’re much deeper down. Two things about that. They are more expensive to extract and they take longer to dig out of the ground and they don’t last as long so you’ve got to keep finding new resources. What this means for what we were proposing to the Americans was continued and improved investment in getting access to those critical minerals. We’ve got some of the most sophisticated miners in Australia, Andrew. We’ve got a very sophisticated mining operation here, much more sophisticated than the Americans. But the thing we often don’t have is access to capital. So, the offer to the Americans was, look, we’ll work with you. You want these critical minerals, you want them for electric batteries in cars, you’ve mentioned some of the other things, mobile phones, all of these sorts of things. But the process of extraction is expensive, we need capital. We want to work with other countries. We want to particularly work, for instance, with the Europeans. We’ve made them some offers in this regard. It’s not about cheaper prices, it’s not about preferred access. It’s about ensuring that they’ve got a reliable supply chain to ensure that when they need these critical minerals, you’ve got a reliable country like Australia who can provide them.
Andrew Clennell: So, would that be Australian money or American money? When you talk about increased investment –
Minister for Trade: Both. Both.
Andrew Clennell: Okay. So, an Australian financial offer was put on the table?
Minister for Trade: No, it wasn’t a financial offer in that sense. It was a way forward to try and get support both in Australia and in the United States for extracting these critical minerals. So, if we’re going to go down the track of decarbonising our economies, this is the way we need to go. But it’s going to require investment, significant investment. The Australian Government is already making significant investments in this area. But to get to where we want to get to in terms of that net zero project, then we need more investment and –
Andrew Clennell: Do you see the hand of Elon Musk? Do you see the hand of Elon Musk in any of this? The keenness of the Americans for these critical minerals.
Minister for Trade: Well, look, they didn’t accept our offer. So, if Mr Musk was involved in this, then he doesn’t appear to have influenced the result, if that was what he was after. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Musk was not involved in any of these discussions that I –
Andrew Clennell: All right, no worries. We’re nearly out of time. Overnight, the PM reiterated in a meeting with European leaders he would consider sending peacekeepers to Ukraine if there was peace. That’ll be controversial with a lot of Australians because it’s not our region. We know Peter Dutton doesn’t support this. Is the PM trying to muscle up here after Peter Dutton has continually called him weak? What’s the motivation to get involved in this conflict?
Minister for Trade: Andrew, for the last 80 years, in other words, since the end of World War II, Australia has been involved in peacekeeping missions all the way around the world. We’ve come out right from day one, Prime Minister Albanese has been very clear and very strong on this, we support Ukraine. Ukraine’s fight for democracy. Ukraine’s fight for its sovereignty is Australia’s fight. It’s Australia’s fight. We’ve made significant financial contributions to Ukraine to ensure that they can defend themselves from this illegal and immoral monster, Putin, and we’ll continue to do that. And if Prime Minister Starmer says, look, will you contribute to peacekeeping? I think that’s the right thing to do. Look, it’s not all about popularity and so forth, but it’s the right thing to do. We want to see peace around the world. The best thing that Australia can do in terms of any international relationship is to support peace. And if we can make a contribution to that peacekeeping effort, then I think we should. And I think Mr. Dutton is completely on the wrong track here. Australians support the Ukrainian fight. I was on the steps of Parliament House just a couple of weeks ago with Premier Malinauskas. His background is Lithuanian. He knows exactly what happens if you don’t stand up to bullies like Putin. It’s in our interest to defend democracy in Ukraine. It’s in our interest to be part of a peacekeeping force when there’s peace.
Andrew Clennell: Finally, and briefly, there was something of a blow to the government late last week with the default market offer out, that Australians face price rises of up to 10 per cent on their power bills. Will the government’s electricity subsidy be extended and increased in the budget?
Minister for Trade: Well, you know the answer to that question, Andrew. You’ll have to ask the Treasurer, and you’ve only got a few more sleeps to find out what’s going to be in the next budget.
Andrew Clennell: Well, I might ask him on the show next week. Thanks very much, Don Farrell.
Minister for Trade: Nice talking with you Andrew.
Source: China State Council Information Office
African youth have been urged to leverage the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) agreement to tap into broader continental market and economic opportunities.
Experts and policymakers made the call on Saturday during a continental youth-themed meeting organized by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) under the theme of “Making the African Continental Free Trade Area work for African young people: opportunities, challenges and the way forward,” at the UN Conference Center in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa.
Addressing the meeting, Executive Secretary of the UNECA Claver Gatete emphasized that the effective implementation of the continental free trade pact requires concerted efforts toward empowering Africa’s youth as the continent’s future, with 60 percent of Africa’s population under the age of 25.
“We are in a situation where we are facing very serious challenges, and these challenges will continue and will be carried forward by you as young people. That is why empowering the young people becomes very important,” Gatete told African youth.
The UNECA chief emphasized that in the face of a rapidly changing world, the African continent needs to urgently address socio-economic development challenges. He stressed the need to meaningfully engage the youth in key decision-making and development initiatives as a sustainable approach to addressing the challenges.
“We are facing big challenges, where poverty levels are still very high as 476 million Africans are poor, 600 million Africans do not have electricity, and only 37 percent of Africans have access to the internet. This is not a good situation,” Gatete said.
Highlighting the AfCFTA’s critical role in unlocking economic opportunities while also augmenting job creation, he urged African youth to harness the opportunities presented through the growing intra-African trade anchored by the AfCFTA.
Experts, policymakers, and youth representatives at the meeting underscored that growth must create decent work, social inclusion, and poverty reduction, in which the AfCFTA injects the much-needed impetus.
Ethiopian State Minister for Youth Affairs Muna Ahmed underscored that as Africa strives for the AfCFTA’s success, the continent needs to place the major aspirations and challenges of its burgeoning youth central to the free trade pact’s implementation process.
“The AfCFTA presents a historic opportunity to unlock the immense potential of Africa’s young people by expanding access to markets, fostering innovation, and creating sustainable employment opportunities,” the state minister said.
According to the AfCFTA Secretariat, trading under the AfCFTA has gained momentum, as 48 African countries have deposited their instruments of ratification to the African Union (AU).
The AfCFTA envisaged transforming Africa into the world’s largest free trade area. When fully implemented, it is expected to create a single market for goods and services for about 1.4 billion people across Africa, with a combined gross domestic product of 3.4 trillion U.S. dollars, according to the AU.
The meeting, which was held on the margins of the 57th session of the Conference of African Ministers of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, explored opportunities for African youth to leverage in the implementation of the AfCFTA. The meeting also deliberated on the development challenges affecting young Africans.
US Senate News:
Source: The White House
It has been over a year since a U.S.-flagged commercial ship safely sailed through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, or the Gulf of Aden. No terrorist force will stop American commercial and naval vessels from freely sailing the Waterways of the World.
Our economic and national security have been under attack by the Houthis for too long. Today, President Trump’s action and leadership are moving to end this.
Shipping Disruption
Houthi attacks against shipping since 2023 have caused a sustained negative effect on global trade and the economic security of the United States. A 2024 Defense Intelligence Agency report detailed how container shipping through the Red Sea has precipitously declined due to Houthi attacks.
Before their attacks, 25,000 merchant ships passed through the Red Sea annually. The current number has dropped to around 10,000 ships annually.
Imports of consumer goods and cars to the United States, as well as agricultural exports from our own Gulf of America, have been rerouted due to the Houthi attacks.
In November 2023, the Houthis seized the ship M/V Galaxy Leader and began to attack commercial ships with anti-ship missiles and unmanned vehicles.
Houthi attacks caused approximately 75% of U.S.- and UK-affiliated vessels to reroute around Africa instead of transiting the Red Sea. Traveling around Africa takes an average of ten days longer than sailing through the Red Sea. Additional fuel costs are roughly one million dollars more for each voyage around Africa.
Higher shipping rates caused by Houthi attacks probably increased global consumer goods inflation between 0.6 and 0.7 percent in 2024.
Impacts to Allies and Partners
The Red Sea serves a primary conduit for trade between Europe and Asia. Around 95% of ships traveling between Europe and Asia normally would go through the Red Sea.
Out of the top ten importers (by value) of trade through the Red Sea, five are EU nations.
Houthi attacks caused approximately 60% of EU-affiliated vessels to reroute around Africa instead of transiting the Red Sea
The Houthis have attacked U.S. warships 174 times and commercial vessels 145 times since 2023.2023
October 19, 2023: The USS Carney, a U.S. Navy destroyer, intercepted multiple missiles launched from Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen. These missiles posed a threat to U.S. forces.
November 19, 2023: The Houthis attacked and seized the M/V Galaxy Leader and held the multinational crew hostage for over a year.
December 3, 2023: Houthi forces launched missiles and drones targeting three commercial ships in the Red Sea. The USS Carney responded to distress calls and intercepted three drones during this assault.
December 16, 2023: The USS Carney engaged and destroyed 14 drones launched by the Houthis in the southern Red Sea, preventing potential attacks on U.S. military and commercial maritime vessels.
December 26, 2023: The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and USS Gravely responded to a distress call from the commercial vessel Maersk Hangzhou, which was under attack by Houthi forces. U.S. Navy helicopters engaged, resulting in the sinking of three Houthi boats.
December 30, 2023: Houthi forces fired anti-ship ballistic missiles targeting the USS Gravely. The destroyer successfully intercepted the incoming missiles, preventing any damage.
2024
January 10, 2024: The Houthis launched a large-scale missile and drone attack against U.S. and UK naval forces in the Red Sea. The coordinated defense successfully neutralized all incoming threats.
January 15, 2024: The Houthis rebels targeted the U.S.-owned M/V Gibraltar Eagle with a missile, resulting in damage to the vessel.
January 17, 2024: The Houthi rebels targeted the U.S.-owned cargo ship Genco Picardy in the Gulf of Aden using drones, resulting in damage to the vessel.
January 26, 2024: The oil tanker Marlin Luanda, linked to British interests, was attacked by Houthi missiles in the Gulf of Aden, causing a fire onboard.
August 21, 2024: The Houthi rebels attack the Greek-flagged oil tanker M/V Sounion, threatening a massive oil-spill and followed by a months-long salvage effort.
September 27, 2024: The USS Spruance, USS Stockdale, and USS Indianapolis were targeted by a barrage of missiles and drones launched by Houthi forces in the Red Sea. All threats were intercepted without any damage to the U.S. warships.
November 11, 2024: Houthi forces launched a coordinated attack involving drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles against the USS Spruance and USS Stockdale in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. The U.S. destroyers successfully intercepted all incoming threats.
December 1, 2024: While escorting U.S.-flagged merchant vessels in the Gulf of Aden, the USS Stockdale and USS O’Kane intercepted multiple missiles and drones launched by Houthi forces, ensuring the safety of the convoy.
December 9–10, 2024: The USS Stockdale and USS O’Kane again faced Houthi-launched drones and missiles while escorting merchant vessels in the Gulf of Aden. All threats were neutralized without any damage.
Source: US State of Hawaii
Posted on Mar 14, 2025 in Latest Department News, Newsroom
STATE OF HAWAIʻI
KA MOKU ʻĀINA O HAWAIʻI
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM
KA ʻOIHANA HOʻOMOHALA PĀʻOIHANA, ʻIMI WAIWAI A HOʻOMĀKAʻIKAʻI
RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION
JOSH GREEN, M.D.
GOVERNOR
KE KIAʻĀINA
JAMES KUNANE TOKIOKA
DIRECTOR
KA LUNA HOʻOKELE
CHIEF STATE ECONOMIST
HAWAI‘I JANUARY UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AT 3.0 PERCENT
Jobs Increased by 9,900 Year-Over-Year
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 14, 2025
HONOLULU — The Hawai‘i State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) today announced that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for January was 3.0 percent, the same as the previous six consecutive months after benchmark revision. In January, 662,850 persons were employed and 20,400 were unemployed, for a total seasonally adjusted labor force of 683,250 statewide. Nationally, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 4.0 percent in January, down from 4.1 percent in December.
The unemployment rate figures for the state of Hawai‘i and the U.S. in this release are seasonally adjusted in accordance with U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) methodology. The not-seasonally adjusted rate for the state was 2.7 percent in January, compared to 2.8 percent in December.
Industry Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey)
In a separate measure of employment, total nonagricultural jobs decreased by 500 month-over-month, from December 2024 to January 2025. Job gains were experienced in Manufacturing (+100); Private Education & Health Services (+100); and Other Services (+100). Employment in Construction remained unchanged. Job losses occurred in Information (-100); Trade, Transportation & Utilities (-200); Financial Activities (-200); Professional & Business Services (-500); and Leisure & Hospitality (-1,100). Within Leisure & Hospitality, the bulk of the job contraction was in Food Services & Drinking Places. Government employment went up by 1,300 jobs, primarily due to a smaller-than-typical seasonal release of workers in both the Department of Education and the University of Hawai‘i system. Year-over-year, nonfarm jobs have gone up by 9,900, or 1.6 percent.
Technical Notes:
Labor Force Components
The concepts and definitions used by the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program are the same as those used in the Current Population Survey for the national labor force data:
Seasonal Adjustment
The seasonal fluctuations in the number of employed and unemployed persons reflect hiring and layoff patterns that accompany regular events such as the winter holiday season and the summer vacation season. These variations make it difficult to tell whether month-to-month changes in employment and unemployment are due to normal seasonal patterns or to changing economic conditions. Therefore, the BLS uses a statistical technique called seasonal adjustment to address these issues. This technique uses the history of the labor force data and the job count data to identify the seasonal movements and to calculate the size and direction of these movements. A seasonal adjustment factor is then developed and applied to the estimates to eliminate the effects of regular seasonal fluctuations on the data. Seasonally adjusted statistical series enable more meaningful data comparisons between months or with an annual average.
Current Population (Household) Survey (CPS)
A survey conducted for employment status in the week that includes the twelfth day of each month generates the unemployment rate statistics, which is a separate survey from the Establishment Survey that yields the industry job counts. The CPS survey contacts approximately 1,000 households in Hawai‘i to determine an individual’s current employment status. Employed persons consist of 1) all persons who did any work for pay or profit during the survey reference week, 2) all persons who did at least 15 hours of unpaid work in a family-owned enterprise operated by someone in their household and 3) all persons who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs, whether they were paid or not. Persons considered unemployed are those that do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior four weeks and are available for work. Temporarily laid-off workers are counted as unemployed, whether or not they have engaged in a specific job-seeking activity. Persons not in the labor force are those who are not classified as employed or unemployed during the survey reference week.
Benchmark Changes to Local Area Unemployment Statistics Data
Statewide and sub-state data for 2019 to 2024 have revised inputs and data for 1990 to 2024 have been re-estimated to reflect revised population controls and model re-estimation.
Change to Monthly Employment Estimates
This release incorporates revised job count figures for the seasonally adjusted series. The revised data reflects historical corrections applied to unadjusted super sector or sector-level series dating back from 2018 through 2024. For years, analysts with the state of Hawai‘i Department of Labor and Industrial Relations Research and Statistics Office have developed monthly employment estimates for Hawai‘i and its metropolitan areas. These estimates were based on a monthly survey of Hawai‘i businesses and analysts’ knowledge about our local economies. Beginning with the production of preliminary estimates for March 2011, responsibility for the production of state and metropolitan area (MSA) estimates were transitioned from individual state agencies to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
For Hawai‘i, this means the transition of statewide, Honolulu and Kahului-Wailuku MSA estimates for both the seasonally adjusted and not-seasonally adjusted areas are produced by BLS. State agencies will continue to provide the BLS with information on local events that may affect the estimates, such as strikes or large layoffs/hiring at businesses not covered by the survey and to disseminate and analyze the Current Employment Statistics (CES) estimates for local data users. BLS feels this change is designed to improve the cost efficiency of the CES program and to reduce the potential bias in state and area estimates. A portion of the cost savings generated by this change is slated to be directed toward raising survey response rates in future years, which will decrease the level of statistical error in the CES estimates. Until then, state analysts feel this change could result in increased month-to-month variability for the industry employment numbers, particularly for Hawai‘i’s counties and islands. BLS can be reached at 202-691-6555 for any questions about these estimates.
The not-seasonally adjusted job estimates for Hawai‘i County, Kaua‘i County, Maui, Moloka‘i and Lāna‘i are produced by the state of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism.
Labor Force Estimates for Small Areas
Labor Force estimates for the islands within Maui County (Maui, Moloka‘i and Lānai) are produced by the state of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism.
Seasonally Adjusted Labor Force and Unemployment Estimates for Honolulu and Maui County
BLS publishes smoothed seasonally adjusted civilian labor force and unemployment estimates for all metropolitan areas, which includes the City and County of Honolulu and Maui County.
BLS releases this data each month in the Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment news release. The schedule is available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.toc.htm.
Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization
| Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States, 2024 annual averages (percent) | ||||||||
| Area | Measure | |||||||
| U-1 | U-2 | U-3 | U-4 | U-5 | U-6 | |||
| United States | 1.5 | 1.9 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 7.5 | ||
| Hawai‘i | 0.8 | 1.1 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 6.4 | ||
The six alternative labor underutilization state measures based on the Current Population Survey (CPS) and compiled on a four-quarter moving-average basis defined as:
U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers*, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part-time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.
*Individuals who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they had one within the past 12 months) but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey, for such reasons as childcare or transportation problems, for example. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached.
Please note that the state unemployment rates (U-3) that are shown are derived directly from the CPS. As a result, these U-3 measures may differ from the official state unemployment rates for the latest four-quarter period. The latter are estimates developed from statistical models that incorporate CPS estimates, as well as input data from other sources, such as state unemployment claims data.
###
Media Contacts:
Dr. Eugene Tian
Chief State Economist
Research and Economic Analysis Division
Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism
Phone: 808-586-2470
Email: [email protected]
Laci Goshi
Communications Officer
Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism
Cell: 808-518-5480
Email: [email protected]
Source: Government of India
Posted On: 15 MAR 2025 3:50PM by PIB Delhi
Nominations/recommendations for the Padma Awards-2026 to be announced on the occasion of Republic Day, 2026 have started on 15th March, 2025. The last date for nominations for Padma Awards is 31st July, 2025. The nominations/recommendations for Padma Awards will only be received online on the Rashtriya Puraskar Portal (https://awards.gov.in ).
The Padma Awards, namely, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri, are amongst the highest civilian awards of the country. Instituted in 1954, these Awards are announced on the occasion of the Republic Day every year. The Award seeks to recognize ‘work of distinction’ and is given for distinguished and exceptional achievements/service in all fields/disciplines, such as Art, Literature and Education, Sports, Medicine, Social Work, Science and Engineering, Public Affairs, Civil Service, Trade and Industry etc. All persons without distinction of race, occupation, position or sex are eligible for these Awards. Government servants including those working with PSUs, except Doctors and Scientists, are not eligible for Padma Awards.
The Government is committed to transform Padma Awards into “People’s Padma”. All citizens are, therefore, requested to make nominations/recommendations, including self-nomination. Concerted efforts may be made to identify talented persons whose excellence and achievements really deserve to be recognized from amongst women, weaker sections of the society, SCs & STs, divyang persons and who are doing selfless service to the society.
The nominations/recommendations should contain all relevant details specified in the format available on the above said Portal, including a citation in narrative form (maximum 800 words), clearly bringing out the distinguished and exceptional achievements/service of the person recommended in her/his respective field/discipline.
Details in this regard are also available under the heading ‘Awards and Medals’ on the website of Ministry of Home Affairs (https://mha.gov.in) and on the Padma Awards Portal (https://padmaawards.gov.in). The statutes and rules relating to these awards are available on the website with the link https://padmaawards.gov.in/AboutAwards.aspx .
*****
RK/VV/PR/PS
(Release ID: 2111486) Visitor Counter : 10
Source: European Parliament
The European Parliament,
– having regard to Rules 150(5) and 136(4) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas on 27 February 2025, the Thai authorities violated international law by deporting at least 40 Uyghur refugees to China, where they risk arbitrary detention, torture and serious human rights violations; whereas other safe countries had offered to resettle the Uyghur refugees;
B. whereas prior to their deportation, these individuals were detained in Thai immigration centres for over a decade, where at least five Uyghurs, including minors, reportedly died due to inhumane conditions;
C. whereas Thailand’s lese-majesty provisions, under Article 112 of its Criminal Code, are among the strictest in the world and are not in line with Thailand’s obligations under the ICCPR;
D. whereas, since 2020, over 1 960 pro-democracy activists, human rights defenders and journalists, including over 280 minors, have been indicted or condemned for their opinions under repressive laws that curb freedom of expression, including the lese-majesty law, the Sedition Act, the Public Assembly Act and the Computer Crimes Act; whereas prominent activists, including Arnon Nampa, Mongkhon Thirakhot and Anchan Preelert, were sentenced to disproportionately long prison terms for peacefully criticising the monarchy, with some facing up to 50 years’ imprisonment;
E. whereas the Constitutional Court has dissolved the largest party and 44 of its MPs have been indicted for proposing amendments to the lese-majesty law, facing potential lifetime bans from politics; whereas several MPs, including Piyarat Chongthep, Rakchanok Srinok and Chonthicha Jangrew, are being prosecuted for their political activities and statements;
1. Condemns the deportation of Uyghur refugees to China; calls on the Thai authorities to immediately halt any further forced returns of refugees, asylum seekers and political dissidents to countries where their lives are at risk;
2. Urges the Thai Government to grant the UNHCR unrestricted access to all detained Uyghur asylum seekers and provide transparent information on their status;
3. Calls on China to respect the fundamental rights of the deported Uyghurs, ensure transparency about their whereabouts, grant the UNHCR access to them and release those detained;
4. Calls on Thailand to ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol thereto and to implement a transparent, fair and humane asylum system;
5. Stresses that Thailand is an important EU partner; encourages Thailand to strengthen its institutions in line with democratic principles and international human rights standards; calls on the government to amend or repeal Article 112 and other repressive laws to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and political participation;
6. Demands that amnesty be granted to all MPs and activists prosecuted or imprisoned under lese-majesty provisions and other repressive laws;
7. Calls on the Commission to leverage FTA negotiations to press Thailand to reform repressive laws, particularly the lese-majesty law, release political prisoners, halt the deportation of Uyghur refugees and ratify all core ILO conventions; calls on the Member States to suspend extradition treaties with the PRC;
8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Thai and Chinese authorities.
Source: European Parliament
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Articles 151 and 153 thereof,
– having regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights,
– having regard to its resolution of 5 October 2016 on the need for a European reindustrialisation policy in light of the recent Caterpillar and Alstom cases(1),
– having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on information and consultation of workers, anticipation and management of restructuring(2),
– having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2021 on democracy at work: a European framework for employees’ participation rights and the revision of the European Works Council Directive(3),
– having regard to its resolution of 23 November 2023 on job creation – the just transition and impact investments(4),
– having regard to its resolution of 2 February 2023 with recommendations to the Commission on Revision of European Works Councils Directive(5),
– having regard to the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) 2015 guidelines for a just transition towards environmentally sustainable economies and societies for all,
– having regard to the La Hulpe Declaration on the future of the European Pillar of Social Rights of 16 April 2024,
– having regard to the Tripartite Declaration for a Thriving European Social Dialogue of January 2024(6),
– having regard to the Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022 on ensuring a fair transition towards climate neutrality(7),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2019 entitled ‘The European Green Deal’ (COM(2019)0640),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund(8),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 1 July 2020 entitled ‘European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience’ (COM(2020)0274),
– having regard to the opinion of the European Committee of the Regions of 25 May 2023 on zero long-term unemployment: the local and regional perspective(9),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 1 February 2023 entitled ‘A Green Deal Industrial Plan for the Net-Zero Age’ (COM(2023)0062),
– having regard to Rule 136(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,
A. whereas the transition to a green, digital and competitive European economy is necessary to maintain the European social model, but can itself only be achieved if people are sufficiently protected from the potential adverse social consequences of major economic changes; whereas protecting the environment and climate is imperative for long-term prosperity and well-being;
B. whereas social dialogue, collective bargaining and strong trade union involvement are essential for ensuring workers’ information and consultation rights during restructuring processes; whereas workers’ involvement through information-sharing, consultation and participation in company decision-making processes is more important than ever to ensure a fair and just transition, competitiveness, and the economic growth of companies and to protect jobs and workers’ collective interests, such as decent working conditions, fair wages and equal treatment; whereas the just transition is about supporting social justice and upward social convergence and ensuring fair burden-sharing, while safeguarding a sustainable, resource-efficient and competitive economy, reaching climate neutrality and fighting climate change;
C. whereas restructuring processes can lead to both job losses and job gains and can include and take different forms, such as internal restructuring, business expansion, closure, bankruptcy, merger/acquisition, offshoring/delocalisation, outsourcing, relocation and reshoring; whereas Council Directives 98/59/EC(10), 2001/23/EC(11) and 2002/14/EC(12) lay down the information and consultation rights of workers in the event of the restructuring of enterprises;
D. whereas only 40 % of European trade unions report having sufficient resources to represent workers effectively during restructuring processes(13); whereas trade union representatives trained in restructuring negotiations are 50 % more effective in preserving jobs(14); whereas, according to Eurofound, a lack of resources and skills, as well as time, have been identified as a key obstacle for social partner engagement in shaping the just transition, particularly at the local and regional levels; whereas the capacity of European Works Councils to influence restructuring processes is found to be limited and needs to be further strengthened;
E. whereas it is essential to ensure job creation and decent working conditions, supporting the transition to a sustainable and profitable economy, long-term economic viability and environmental sustainability; whereas the transformation of our industrial base provides an opportunity to strengthen European autonomy, reverse deindustrialisation, create secure and stable jobs and help us meet climate and environmental targets, while protecting workers’ rights and people at the heart of a social Europe; whereas retraining funding for workers made redundant as a result of large-scale restructuring has been provided through the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, benefitting thousands of European workers;
F. whereas companies that are restructuring should prioritise long-term objectives, such as economic sustainability and long-term employment stability, in combination with other objectives such as economic profits, while strengthening trade union involvement and corporate social responsibility in their restructuring plans; whereas small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular should be supported in this;
G. whereas shortages of skilled workers, including vocationally trained experts, in key sectors are a significant obstacle to the competitiveness of the EU economy and its ability to accomplish the green and digital transitions;
H. whereas the manufacturing industry, including the automotive, steel and microchips and semiconductors sectors, is one of the vital economic pillars in Europe; whereas these sectors provide millions of direct and indirect jobs;
I. whereas it is important to move towards the decarbonisation of road transport, which must be achieved in such a way as to limit job losses in the car industry, and to include all stakeholders and social partners in the transformation process; whereas affected workers should be supported by providing upskilling, reskilling and training opportunities and relevant safety nets in the event of temporary unemployment;
1. Underlines the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights and, in particular, principle 5 on secure and adaptable employment, including the right to fair and equal treatment regarding working conditions, principle 7 on information about employment conditions and protection in case of dismissals and principle 8 on social dialogue and involvement of workers; stresses the urgent need for an ambitious competitive European industrial policy with significant investment that will support the services of general interest(15) and innovation, while reducing the administrative burden in Member States, and deliver quality jobs in every region and sector, strengthen social progress and meet climate targets; underlines that this policy should be combined with resilient and strong national public services, such as access to social protection, decent and affordable housing, affordable, efficient and climate neutral transport, affordable and available childcare, elderly care, and support for people with disabilities;
2. Recognises that the EU needs to reform its economy in order to maintain its competitiveness and achieve the green and digital transitions, including through a European industrial policy; welcomes the establishment of a European Competitiveness Fund, as envisaged by the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen; reiterates its call for the economic governance framework to be strengthened by a common investment instrument(16) at EU level in order to achieve the EU’s current and future priorities, including the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; believes that such an instrument should ensure that the necessary resources are available in all relevant sectors for developing an industrial policy and for policies that support the protection and creation of quality jobs and that contribute to upward social convergence; reiterates its previous call on the Commission and the Council to reinforce the European instrument for temporary support to mitigate unemployment risks in an emergency instrument (SURE) to support short-time work schemes, workers’ income and workers who would be temporarily laid off in the context of the green transition, while taking into account the outcome of the final evaluation report and considering that SURE saved 40 million jobs(17);
3. Highlights that the delivery of a European industrial policy for quality jobs requires the full involvement of social partners and needs to be implemented through social dialogue and collective bargaining; calls on the Commission to present an ambitious quality jobs roadmap and to implement the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights; calls on the Commission to ensure the full involvement and consultation of social partners in the design and implementation of the upcoming European clean industrial deal and to include the overall objective of ensuring job quality and stability at EU level;
4. Calls for the EU to adopt trade policies that promote and protect quality jobs; stresses that future trade agreements must include labour clauses in line with ILO standards to ensure that global trade protects workers and SMEs;
5. Urges the Commission in the context of the forthcoming revision of the European Public Procurement Directive(18) to further promote collective bargaining and the use of the social clause, and preferential treatment for companies whose workers are covered by collective agreements; underlines that contracting authorities must exclude from public tenders economic operators that have engaged in criminal activities; maintains that public procurement should strategically strengthen corporate social responsibility; highlights the importance of ensuring that European and national funds are used to facilitate the transition to a climate-neutral economy, including by promoting social dialogue and collective bargaining; considers, furthermore, that no EU financial support should go to undertakings that do not comply with the applicable working and employment conditions and/or employer obligations resulting from EU or national labour law or the relevant collective agreements; believes that this support should also be used to promote European industrial competiveness and the creation of quality jobs in the EU and promote collective bargaining and compliance with EU and national labour rights and laws, including decent working conditions; calls for EU funding and State aid by Member States to be aligned with a European industrial policy, in order to offer high-quality jobs, promote collective bargaining, respect of EU labour rights and standards, improve the competitiveness of European businesses and ensure improved working conditions;
6. Calls for European investments in vital sectors and essential products to strengthen the EU’s strategic autonomy, as well as the digital and green transitions, such as zero-emission transport, renewable energy, clean tech and digital technologies, including artificial intelligence; insists that these investments must fully respect existing legislation on workers’ rights and strengthen community development;
7. Invites the Commission to monitor the trends in restructuring and their impact on employment, using data from tools such as the European Restructuring Monitor and the EU Fair Transition Observatory, which should be launched in 2025, to track the number of jobs created or lost and the companies concerned;
8. Acknowledges that achieving digital and green objectives will create opportunities and might at the same time require transformations or restructuring processes in many sectors; stresses that social dialogue in the anticipation and management of these processes is essential to safeguard and create quality jobs and manage unavoidable job losses with enough support and can contribute to achieving a climate-neutral economy that sustains its social, economic and environmental standards; highlights that restructuring processes must respect fundamental workers’ rights, such as the right of information and consultation; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take action to reinforce and promote collective bargaining, in full respect of the autonomy of the social partners and of the right of collective bargaining; emphasises that workers should be beneficiaries of restructuring, including when they transfer to a new equivalent job within their current firm or sector, or as they reskill to transfer to a job in a future-proof sector, all while being adequately assisted and compensated;
9. Emphasises that developments leading to restructuring processes should be anticipated by management, and plans for changes should start as early as possible to prevent insolvency and job losses, while involving workers’ representatives and trade unions at an early stage to ensure meaningful social dialogue, including in the case of preventive restructuring frameworks as provided for in Directive (EU) 2019/1023(19); calls on the Commission and the Member States to work in close cooperation with social partners to identify risks early and develop comprehensive plans to address employment and economic stability needs; supports, in that regard, investment in the training and capacity building of trade unions and workers’ representatives engaged in restructuring processes;
10. Stresses that restructuring processes also have an impact on the supply chain and can pose a considerable risk to indirect employment across the EU; calls on the Commission and the Member States to support companies, including SMEs, undergoing restructuring processes in order to integrate into their plans the impacts on other European companies in their supply chain; further calls on the Commission and the Member States to support companies indirectly impacted by these restructuring processes to mitigate the consequences on employment;
11. Stresses that the EU must address shortages of skilled workers in strategic sectors in order to enhance its competitiveness; points out that addressing skills shortages and supporting workers who need to transition to a new job following a restructuring process are complementary objectives; emphasises the fact that sufficient access to reskilling and upskilling is a precondition for a successful transition to a new job in another sector; urges the Commission to take account of this in its proposals for a clean industrial deal and the Union of skills, including by expanding the role of Centres of Vocational Excellence; calls on the Commission to improve the recognition of skills across Member States and to ensure that its programmes better address the needs of vocationally trained experts;
12. Underlines that restructuring processes must not be used as a pretext to violate workers’ information and consultation rights, as well as the right of collective bargaining and trade union rights(20); deplores the violation of the fundamental rights of collective bargaining and of information and consultation before a decision is made; believes trade unions should be equipped with sufficient resources and capacity to assess a company’s decision to restructure and to engage the support of an independent expert; calls on the Commission, the Member States and the social partners to put in place further safeguards to ensure collective bargaining and to prevent the misuse of restructuring processes as a means to forego employers’ obligations; underlines that penalties should be imposed in instances of infringements and non-compliance;
13. Is alarmed that European company law provisions, as well as their interpretation in some legal cases, are creating loopholes and are enabling the circumvention of mandatory national board-level participation rules(21);
14. Emphasises that one of the most effective ways to prevent the need for restructuring is through the proactive anticipation and management of change through collective bargaining and information and consultation; urges the Member States to ensure quality upskilling or reskilling, life-long learning, employee training and career development support; points out that upskilling and reskilling should be prioritised as far as possible before job cuts are considered;
15. Underlines that gender equality should be an integral part of transition strategies and should be mainstreamed across related policy and legislative measures to strengthen the fairness of our societies; believes it is essential to ensure equal treatment and equal access to economic opportunities for women, paying attention to the most vulnerable, such as women with disabilities, single mothers, women belonging to minorities and migrant women;
16. Considers that an industrial plan agreed with the social partners is essential to promote the economic viability of European industrial companies and, in the worst case, prevent closures and forced redundancies; calls on the Commission and the Member States to support companies, in particular SMEs, to prevent forced redundancies; calls on the Commission and the Member States to put in place mechanisms that help to avoid forced redundancies, such as temporary support programmes to protect employment during transitions, avoiding the loss of strategic industrial capacity and skilled workforces; calls on European enterprises and employers in the process of restructuring to devise and implement plans at an early stage in order to avoid job losses and maintain decent working conditions and high social standards, to the extent that this is possible; demands stronger protections against unfair dismissals and demands the necessary support for workers affected by restructuring to give them access to retraining opportunities and support, such as income support, including while searching for new employment; reaffirms that the dignity and rights of workers as well as the economic and financial sustainability of the company are important objectives to consider in the context of restructuring processes;
17. Welcomes the Commission’s announcement that it will propose a clean industrial deal that, in addition to speeding up decarbonisation, maintains and creates quality jobs in the green and digital sectors in the EU; emphasises that the clean industrial deal should focus on strategic industries, avoiding the delocalisation of production and loss of jobs, while strengthening the European social model and social justice;
18. Calls on the Commission, in close collaboration with the social partners, to consider the establishment of a framework directive to address the challenges and complexities associated with employers’ obligations in subcontracting chains and labour intermediaries in Europe to ensure decent working conditions and the respect of worker’s rights; calls for the framework directive to include measures regulating the role of labour intermediaries, other than temporary work agencies, and to introduce an EU general legal framework limiting subcontracting and ensuring joint and several liability through the subcontracting chain, in order to end abusive subcontracting and protect workers’ rights and their claims over issues such as wage arrears, the non-payment of social contributions, bankruptcy, disappearances and ‘letterbox subcontractors’ who do not pay as agreed; calls for this directive to include provisions ensuring the respect of information and consultation rights and the right to collective bargaining, including for subcontracted workers;
19. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support the social partners in their efforts to include issues related to the green transition in collective bargaining at the appropriate levels; highlights that collective agreements can cover the impact of an undertaking’s activities on the environment, the protection of workers from the effects of climate change and the impact of the green transition on working conditions; calls on the EU and the Member States to further support actions and initiatives that will incentivise employers and workers to adapt to the green transition and to make collective bargaining a key tool for ensuring balanced production models that protect the environment and create quality jobs;
20. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
|
Source: United Nations – Geneva
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities today concluded its review of the initial report of Palau, with Committee Experts commending the State on a project focused on making homes for the elderly more accessible, while raising questions on the accessibility of public transport, and how persons with disabilities were included in the response to emergency situations.
A Committee Expert welcomed the financial measures and information provided on the project which aimed to make homes for the elderly accessible in Palau.
Another Committee Expert congratulated Palau for its commitment to the area of accessibility and desire to create a more inclusive society. However, concerns persisted, including the lack of accessible public transport. What measures had been taken to ensure free access to information for different types of disability? An Expert asked what steps were being taken to facilitate the transportation and movement of persons with disabilities? Another Expert asked if accessibility requirements were included throughout the purchase of public infrastructure?
Gerel Dondovdorj, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce for Palau, asked if the State party had reviewed national legislation related to the situation of risk and humanitarian emergency, including the national disaster risk framework, to include the safety and protection of persons with disabilities? Could information on mechanisms of early warning for persons with disabilities be provided? Did the State party have existing mechanisms to ensure the participation of persons with disabilities in the planning, designing and implementation of activities relating to emergency situations?
The delegation said unfortunately, public transport in general was underdeveloped in Palau, and had only begun around two years ago, with a small number of buses with a limited route. Unfortunately, the buses being used were currently not accessible to persons with disabilities, and it was up to the families to take care of the transport of their family members and children with special needs. The State had purchased vehicles, including a van that was disability equipped, which currently was only available by request. The question was whether all public transport needed to be accessible, or due to numbers should it just be a specific programme with enough equipment catered to the needs of the population?
The delegation said at this time, the Government had not currently conducted a review of the national disaster risk framework legislation. However, there were regular reviews, post-disaster, to determine gaps in emergency preparedness and disaster reduction. Palau had the National Emergency Management Office, governed by the National Emergency Committee, comprised of all government agencies and civil society, including the Palau Red Cross. All emergency preparedness and disaster response were coordinated through the Committee.
Being a small community, Palau could identify people individually and had a database on people’s specific needs. This knowledge was incorporated into exercises and drills. Community health workers assisted during disasters to ensure everyone had equal access to shelters.
Introducing the report, Jeffrey Antol, Director, Bureau of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of State of Palau and head of the delegation, said while Palau faced unique challenges, from geographical and resource limitations to the increasing impact of climate change, these only reinforced the determination to advance the rights of persons with disabilities and build a more inclusive society. One of Palau’s most significant milestones was the enactment of RPPL 11-36 in September 2024, a landmark piece of legislation that established a Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities and an Office of Persons with Disabilities.
In closing remarks, Mr. Antol extended appreciation to the Committee and all those who had contributed to the dialogue. Palau firmly believed that inclusion was not merely a policy goal, but a fundamental human right. The enactment of the persons with disabilities act and the development of the national disability inclusive policy marked significant milestones in the journey towards full alignment with the Convention.
Gertrude Oforiwa Fefoame, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, thanked the members of the delegation of Palau for their presence and the open dialogue with the Committee. The State was commended for its commitment in working towards the implementation of the Convention. From the goodwill expressed by the delegation, it was expected that the State would proactively ensure the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations.
The delegation of Palau was comprised of representatives from the Ministry of State; the Ministry of Health and Human Services; the Office of the President; and the Permanent Mission of Palau to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s thirty-second session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public at 10. a.m. on Thursday, 20 March, to hold a day of general discussion on article 29 of the Convention on participation in political and public life.
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of Palau (CRPD/C/PLW/1).
Presentation of Report
GAAFAR J. UHERBELAU, Special Advisor to the President of Palau, introduced the delegation of Palau.
JEFFREY ANTOL, Director, Bureau of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of State of Palau and head of the delegation, said while Palau faced unique challenges, from geographical and resource limitations to the increasing impact of climate change, these only reinforced the determination to advance the rights of persons with disabilities and build a more inclusive society.
One of Palau’s most significant milestones was the enactment of RPPL 11-36 in September 2024, a landmark piece of legislation that established a Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities and an Office of Persons with Disabilities. This legislation addressed critical gaps in disability governance, with key provisions that included the development of a new national policy on persons with disabilities; the establishment of sustainable funding mechanisms through the allocation of annual tax revenues from alcohol, cigarettes, and tobacco products to support disability programmes and services; and a multi-stakeholder governance structure, ensuring the active participation of government agencies, civil society organizations, the private sector, and persons with disabilities.
Palau had taken major steps towards accessibility in recent years, including conducting access audits for schools, public buildings, and parks, leading to infrastructure improvements, including accessible ramps and parking. The Ngermalk Accessibility Ramp and Airai Accessibility Ramp project set new standards for inclusive design, enabling inclusive access to the sea waters and leisure. RPPL No. 11-11, enacted in September 2021, established the Palau severely disabled assistance fund and child raising subsidy, now supporting 186 children and elderly persons with disabilities. The child raising subsidy provided financial assistance to parents and legal guardians for the costs of raising a Palauan citizen child under the age of 18 who resided full-time with the applicant in Palau. The meal programme provided nutritious meals to support Palauan citizens aged 55 and older, homebound individuals, and adults with special healthcare needs residing in Palau.
To enhance inclusive education, 22 teachers had been trained in assistive technologies to support students with disabilities. Access to individualised education programmes was expanded to provide tailored learning support.
However, the State needed to do more to bridge the gap in specialised learning resources, inclusive curricula, and teacher training. Palau’s workforce innovation and opportunity act trained persons with disabilities, including women with disabilities, and empowered them to access the job market. Entrepreneurship programmes were being expanded to provide persons with disabilities with opportunities to create and manage their businesses.
Women and girls with disabilities experienced two to three times the level of gender-based violence compared to those without disabilities. To address this, the revised national gender mainstreaming policy would integrate disability-specific protections, including targeted legal amendments, training law enforcement and service providers, and expanding access to shelters and psychosocial support services. Palau’s national gender mainstreaming policy was undergoing revision to fully integrate disability perspectives.
As a climate-vulnerable nation, Palau understood the critical importance of disability-inclusive disaster risk reduction. In September 2024, the guidelines on disability inclusive disaster risk reduction were launched, ensuring accessible emergency shelters with ramps, assistive devices, and trained staff; early warning systems adapted for persons with sensory disabilities; and community engagement programmes to ensure that persons with disabilities were active participants in disaster preparedness planning.
While Palau had made significant progress, challenges remained. Data collection efforts were being expanded to disaggregate statistics by gender and disability, ensuring targeted interventions that addressed the unique vulnerabilities of women, girls, and children with disabilities. Palau was also working towards accessible voting procedures, ensuring that persons with disabilities could exercise their right to vote independently. It was also promoting representation in Government advisory bodies. Mr. Antol reaffirmed Palau’s commitment to working closely with development partners, United Nations agencies, civil society organizations, the private sector, and persons with disabilities and their representative organizations, to address these challenges head-on.
Questions by Committee Experts
GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce for Palau, thanked the State party for the comprehensive initial report. Ms. Dondovdorj appreciated the quality of alternative reports of organizations of persons with disabilities provided to the Committee. Palau had made some progress in implementing the Convention, which would be addressed later in the dialogue. Although some legislative measures had been taken by the State party, some of these were not fully compliant with the Convention, including the disabled persons anti-discrimination act, which could not fully respond to the challenges faced by women with disabilities.
Concerns persisted about the lack of progress made to abolish the guardianship regime and implement the supported decision-making system in Palau. It was essential to ensure the meaningful participation of women with disabilities in decision-making. The Government of Palau was encouraged to pay attention to this issue.
GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, said the enactment of RPPL 11-36 outlined the State’s commitment to advancing the rights of persons with disabilities. What steps were being taken for the State to appeal and amend legislation which was not in line with the Convention? What would be the process and timeline for harmonising definitions? What steps were in place to address the lack of timelines of the implementation of the decisions of the Coordinating Committee of the Office of Persons with Disabilities? How were organizations of persons with disabilities being involved in the formulation of programmes and policies?
Currently Palau did not have a law on reasonable accommodation. What specific steps were being taken to amend relevant legislation to include disability as a prohibited ground of discrimination? What were the timelines to ensure the disabled person anti-discrimination act encompassed all forms of disability-based discrimination, including the denial of reasonable accommodation? What mechanism would be put in place to track the progress of the anti-discrimination policies under discussion? How would it be ensured they were well implemented and monitored? What was in place to eliminate multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination?
How did Palau plan to strengthen gender mainstreaming to ensure women and girls with disabilities were included in all relevant policies and programmes? Did it include amending the family protection act? What steps were being taken to ensure the voices of women and girls with disabilities were heard? What steps were being taken to ensure their participation? How was the participation of children being monitored? What measures was the State taking to prevent negative stereotypes of persons with disabilities, particularly in rural communities? What plans were in place to ensure training and awareness raising about persons with disabilities at all levels?
What steps was the Government taking to identify existing barriers to accessibility in the public and private sector, and provide the necessary resources to remove these barriers? What measures would be taken to bridge the digital divide?
It was commendable that the Washington Group’s short questions on disability had been used and integrated into the census. What steps was the State adopting to promote inclusivity and improve disability data collection? What processes were in place to collect the issues around access to justice?
Could more information be provided about the newly established Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities, including its members, mandate and budget? How were representatives of persons with disabilities represented on this Committee? What steps were taken to involve persons with disabilities into international cooperation?
There was no national human rights institution established in line with the Paris Principles in Palau. Had there been any progress on this? Was there a mechanism to oversee the implementation and monitoring of the Convention?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said harmonising legislation had been a challenge in Palau. Through the new legislative process, one of the first tasks would be to have a full assessment and legislative review of relevant laws which needed to be revised, to ensure no discrimination was implied by language used in legislation moving forward. It was expected that Palau could work with lawmakers and the National Congress to undertake a comprehensive legal review and carry out the changes. It was hoped this could be achieved within 12 to 24 months.
The Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities was working on a disability policy with representatives of organizations of persons with disabilities. There were practices at the national level to provide reasonable accommodation in employment, as well as access to voting. Palau understood there was a need to improve measures in this regard.
The State was excited about the new legislation, which would create a new body with the task to mainstream any data, enabling the State to look at specific needs. The Government would ensure the new body was sufficiently resourced to undertake its tasks. It would examine Convention articles and look at how Palau could do better in this regard.
There were currently gaps in the implementation of the family act, including a lack of training of law enforcement officials on the act itself. The State would examine the gaps in the next six to 12 months.
Palau had a gender office within the Ministry of State. Many programmes required the representation of women and the parents of children with disabilities. Aside from the Ministries and civil society organizations for women and children with disabilities, a lot of data was non-existent outside of those agencies. Palau had made efforts to reorganise ministries to ensure the family protection act was housed in the department of health and public services. Data collection methods and tools would be streamlined to ensure a more comprehensive data set, used to assist women and girls with disabilities.
There was currently no strategy for awareness raising. The State had an upcoming project which would train Government stakeholders on disabilities and persons with disabilities. There was a need for a legislative review in this regard.
Persons with disabilities in Palau accounted for between three to four per cent of the population, meaning it was easy for the general public to ignore, such as in the case of disability parking spots. The Government needed to change the culture and attitude, including towards the overall concept of disability. The newly established Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities would ensure that every programme planned would welcome the input of women and children with disabilities.
There were many gaps in data collection in Palau with regards to persons with disabilities, and this varied between sectors. The State was in the process of consolidating data sets, streamlining collection and ensuring information was credible, relevant and secure for sharing. The work of the new established committee would supplement and enhance this work.
Regarding the newly established Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities, the members included several Ministers, including the Minister of Justice, Finance and Health. There would also be representatives from an organization representing persons with disabilities, governors, and a religious and state-based organization. The Committee was the first time that Palau was forced by law to have representation. The work of the Committee would also reach policy makers directly, which often did not happen. It held the State accountable to ensure specific resources would be directly available to the Committee. Currently, only one organization of persons with disabilities was represented on the Committee, as well as a civil society organization. The Committee and the policy were under a strict timeline to be developed by the end of June.
Persons with disabilities had been represented in different committees, subcommittees and bodies. Palau worked collaboratively with the Government of Australia and representatives of organizations of persons with disabilities were consulted in the process across certain projects.
Funding constraints were the number one barrier to establishing a national human rights institution in Palau. The State understood the value and purpose, but funding was the constraining factor. Palau recognised the need for a robust data system, which could be used as a tool to guide policy development. Palau would rely on the newly established Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities to monitor all aspects of the implementation of the Convention.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert congratulated Palau for its commitment to the area of accessibility and desire to create a more inclusive society. However, concerns persisted, including the lack of accessible public transport. What measures had been taken to ensure free access to information for different types of disability?
Another Expert asked how many girls and women with disabilities had been provided with training on small and medium sized enterprises. The Committee was delighted to hear that the State was analysing the many limitations faced by women with disabilities, particularly those facing violence. The Committee would like to ensure that the State was addressing the correct data in this regard.
An Expert asked what steps were being taken to facilitate the access of persons with disabilities to technologies? What steps were being taken to facilitate the transportation and movement of persons with disabilities? How could organizations representing children with disabilities be supported?
Another Committee Expert asked if accessibility requirements were included throughout the purchase of public infrastructure? It was very good that there was good access to the internet for persons with disabilities. Were accessibility standards being taken into account when web content was created?
An Expert asked about the political environment when discussing issues related to persons with disabilities? Was the Congress willing to make important changes in legislation and approve specific legislation to incorporate Convention principles? How could the international community support Palau to bring about these changes sooner rather than later?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said unfortunately, public transport in general was underdeveloped in Palau, and had only begun around two years ago, with a small number of buses with a limited route. Unfortunately, the buses being used were currently not accessible to persons with disabilities, and it was up to the families to take care of the transport of their family members and children with special needs. The State had purchased vehicles, including a van that was disability equipped, which currently was only available by request. Being an island, it was also important for the State to purchase boats which were disability accessible. Palau’s citizens had access to relatively cheap internet, but the issue was devices. The State had not taken further steps to identify specific technologies that persons with disabilities might need. Therefore, those with visual impairments would have to source their digital devices out of Palau. The State would look at the data and determine if this was something which required additional investment.
A majority of those who had received training were women, and some percentage would be women with disabilities. Data specific to violence against women and girls with disabilities needed to be disaggregated in the State’s data set.
The question was whether all public transport needed to be accessible, or due to numbers should it just be a specific programme with enough equipment catered to the needs of the population? There were one or two vans which could respond to requests currently. Would this be enough, or would there be a growing need for accessibility vehicles? Currently, more equipment was required. It would make sense that all equipment should be accessible, but that had more costs. The State was looking at this with a phased approach. For small countries like Palau, things were only addressed when there was a visible need, as opposed to putting in place standards to address things beforehand, and this applied to access to information. However, it did not take away from the need for the State to think holistically.
The political will to ratify the treaties was there, but there were challenges when it came to prioritising budget allocation. The onus was on the delegation to return to Palau and continue raising awareness.
Questions by Committee Experts
GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce for Palau, asked if the State party had reviewed national legislation related to the situation of risk and humanitarian emergency, including the national disaster risk framework, to include the safety and protection of persons with disabilities? If not, what were the plans to review and amend the legislation? Could information on mechanisms of early warning for persons with disabilities be provided? How accessible were these systems to persons with diverse disabilities, including those who were blind and deaf? Did the State party have existing mechanisms to ensure the participation of persons with disabilities in the planning, designing and implementation of activities relating to emergency situations? What measures had the State party taken to ensure adequate budget allocation for this purpose?
Palau still promoted the guardianship regime, which meant a person’s legal capacity could be restricted, based on a court declaration. Were there specific plans to end the guardianship regime, and implement supported decision-making for persons with disabilities? Could data on the number of persons with disabilities under guardianship be provided? How many people had repealed these decisions?
GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, said information had been received about barriers in accessing justice for persons with disabilities, due to a lack of reasonable accommodation, particularly those with psychosocial disabilities. What measures would be taken to review all legislation, including criminal laws, to ensure compliance with the Convention? What measures were being taken to ensure age appropriate and gender sensitive accommodation in judicial and administrative proceedings for all persons with disabilities? Was information provided in an accessible format, and how was the accessibility of court buildings ensured? How was information communicated, for example through sign language?
Had regular monitoring been conducted to ensure persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities were not subjected to arbitrary or forced treatment, including confinement? What was the most recent monitoring result, and efforts taken to improve the situation? Was there disaggregated data on persons with disabilities deprived of their liberty in Palau?
GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce for Palau, asked about services provided by the Victims of Crime Office, reopened in 2022, including access to shelters? Was sign-language interpretation provided and reasonable accommodation ensured? Was information about existing services disseminated to persons with disabilities through accessible formats? Did the State party have any targeted measures to ensure all persons with disabilities, including women with disabilities, were free from all types of violation and exploitation? Were there any specific targeted policies and strategies targeting women with disabilities?
Information had been received on the tragic case of a blind woman who was sterilised without consent, but with the consent of her family members. What legislation was in place to protect persons with disabilities from being subjected to treatment without their free and informed consent, including forced sterilisation and abortion? Did a monitoring mechanism exist in this regard?
How many persons with disabilities had been placed in institutions, including mental health hospitals? Were there any plans or strategies to promote the independence of persons with disabilities at the community level? What were the plans to implement the deinstitutionalisation plan, to ensure everyone was given the opportunity to live in the community?
What measures were in place to ensure that persons with disabilities in Palau could access high-quality and affordable assistive devices? Were these exempt from import taxes? What measures were being taken to eliminate physical restraints in all settings, including prisons and institutions? Did Palau have any plans to ratify the Convention against Torture? Had any monitoring of cases of torture being undertaken? Could information be provided about the State’s existing complaints mechanism?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said at this time, the Government had not currently conducted a review of the national disaster risk framework legislation. However, there were regular reviews, post-disaster, to determine gaps in emergency preparedness and disaster reduction. Based on existing legislation, there was no need to change too much. Palau had the National Emergency Management Office, governed by the National Emergency Committee, comprised of all government agencies and civil society, including the Palau Red Cross. All emergency preparedness and disaster response were coordinated through the Committee. Once the President declared a national emergency, this gave the Government access to all resources and the authority to commandeer accommodation such as shelters for the response. The Government would conduct a legislative review to see if there was anything missing in the law which should be amended in relation to persons with disabilities.
The State had working relationships with civil society, including the Red Cross, which was actively involved in drills and exercises in response to disasters. Being a small community, Palau could identify people individually and had a database on people’s specific needs. This knowledge was incorporated into exercises and drills. Community health workers assisted during disasters to ensure everyone had equal access to shelters.
A health care coalition, enacted through an executive order of the President, represented persons with disabilities and parents’ organizations, bringing them together to plan activities. A month was dedicated to preparedness awareness each year, during which simulation exercises were held, as they were last year. At this point, Palau did not see the need to have too many members, including from the Government, in the National Emergency Committee during an emergency. It was more important to capture feedback, participation and input from non-governmental organizations during the planning, training and exercises phases, to execute the best response. The delegation would investigate if there was a need to expand the Committee to include persons with disabilities. At this point, the State prioritised local revenue for the response; there were no external funding sources.
The State party understood the guardianship act was not in line with the Convention. However, efforts were being made to consult persons with disabilities before they were held in institutions. The various ministries coordinated together to ensure the Convention was not being violated. The guardianship act would be considered for the upcoming legislative review. The delegation would also debrief on this upon their return. At present, data on those under the guardianship law was not available. This was noted as a priority task and this data would be collected in the future.
The full and systematic review of legislation to ensure compliance with the Convention was long overdue. This would be conducted once the delegation returned to Palau. It was expected the review would take 12 to 24 months; draft amendments would then be proposed for enactment.
The family protection act was a landmark milestone for Palau, allowing for a more uniform and standardised procedure for all people who experienced gender-based or domestic violence, while also allowing the State to assess the gaps in the process. There were currently no courtrooms in Palau which were accessible. This needed to be changed immediately and would be enacted when the delegation returned to Palau. The recommendation would also focus on better equipping the courtrooms with audio visual aids.
In Palau, if persons with psychosocial conditions in prison were required to be confined, this would take place after an assessment with a psychiatrist, and they would be held outside of the general prison. This would also be reviewed to ensure the protocols were being adhered to. Every case received was monitored; however, monitoring ceased once the individual left the facility. This was something that should be tracked and that was something the State planned to accomplish.
Palau maintained a strong belief in cultural values, which was a source of solutions and issues. Often families were still expected to care for the elderly and family members with disabilities. The line was often blurred on where the Government should step in. A transition centre had been built for those who did not have accommodation to return to. It had taken years to build as many community members felt that under Palau culture, family members had the obligation to care for their family members.
The Victims of Crime Office provided services, including counselling and temporary housing for victims, in partnership with non-governmental organizations. The State aimed to introduce training programmes with neighbouring jurisdictions, but this was dependent on costs. In the few cases received where victims required sign-language communication, this had been done virtually with ad-hoc partners. But there was a need to formalise a mechanism for whenever that was needed.
A member of the delegation said she had been a victim of exploitation, and this had been a call for the ministries to come together and strengthen the family protection act, and to take account for specific provisions for protecting women and girls with disabilities. This act would also be reviewed during the legislative review.
The number of cases of forced sterilisation was extremely low, but these situations did happen. There was no legislation which specifically addressed this. The State was cautious to enact legislation which contradicted and caused tension between culture, and the more Western doctrine of rights and laws. Abortion was mostly illegal in Palau, unless the physician determined there was a threat to the life of the mother or the child. Forced treatment and sterilisation was something consulted with the patient, their family and the healthcare provider. It needed to be determined if legislation was really the avenue to address this, or if was more important to have more clarity on those blurred lines between cultural expectation and family consent and the healthcare needs of the patient. This would be added to the list for the legislative review.
A project had been launched during the COVID-19 pandemic to assess certain households for accessibility, to be redesigned for independent living. The findings of the project would be utilised this year to promote more independent living. There was only one mental health facility in Palau, and confinement was only for mental health issues. There had been no cases where persons with other types of disabilities had been confined or admitted without any mental health issues. The plan would be rolled out nationwide and expanded in the future to ensure persons with disabilities could independently live in their own homes, rather than be confined to an institution.
At present, due to cost, Palau dealt with needs for assistive technologies on a case-by-case basis. At present, there was no tax exemption for such equipment unless it was donated. Maintenance and a lack of parts were an ongoing issue. The newly created Office on Persons with Disabilities would undertake a review in this regard.
Palau did not have the need to develop specific measures for the protection of persons with disabilities from ill-treatment. Palau’s culture did not require laws in this regard. Tomorrow, the delegation of Palau would meet with relevant United Nations representatives to further discuss the process of the ratification of the Convention against Torture. There was no active monitoring of case reviews, but the State party undertook case reviews to determine if there were instances of torture. The State had a school health screening programme, where the provider looked for indications of ill-treatment, as well as the victims of crimes assistance programme. Part of the awareness strategy included promoting reporting within the community, which was currently a challenge.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert asked if there were any plans to strengthen the mechanisms and legal safeguards for persons with disabilities, including those with psychosocial disabilities and migrants with disabilities, to ensure they were provided with reasonable accommodation under the 72-hour detention act? What measures were taken to ensure stateless children, including those with disabilities, were granted citizenship? Was there a plan to amend legislation to allow stateless individuals, including those raised in Palau, to apply for citizenship?
Another Expert welcomed the financial measures and information provided on the project which aimed to make homes for the elderly accessible. What measures were being undertaken to improve the disability inclusiveness of mainstream services, such as retail, health, education and housing?
One Expert asked who had trained prison officers in appropriate care? What evaluation had there been for this training? Had the State party implemented the guidelines on deinstitutionalisation?
A Committee Expert asked if there was any follow-up strategy in relation to article 19, enabling persons with disabilities to manage themselves?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the 72 hours was not always adhered to exactly, despite legislation, and was typically handled on a case-by-case basis. This would be included in the legislative review to see if this timeline was still applicable.
A bill had been introduced in the National Congress to examine the possibility of issuing stateless persons with a national identification. While this did not guarantee citizenship, it would enable them to have an identity and hopefully be expanded to include means to travel. Migrants were afforded access to public services like citizens; it was a matter of different costs. The population of Palau was 18,000, and therefore transport could be provided by the Government for those who requested it. This allowed persons with disabilities to access mainstream services. There were ongoing efforts to work with the national health insurance to see if beneficiary coverage could be expanded to include the cost of assistive technologies.
At present, there was no training for law enforcement in mental health first aid. The Government was working to ensure the relevant training was provided. Currently, the Government would call in specialised professionals, including psychiatrists, but it was important to train first responders as they were typically the first to arrive on the scene. Palau was so small they could assign a specific health care professional to assist persons with disabilities when they came in for medical services. The transition centre was intended only to be a temporary situation, while the State looked at longer term solutions for independent living.
Questions by Committee Experts
CHRISTOPHER NWANORO, Committee Vice-Chairperson and Taskforce Member for Palau, said persons with disabilities in Palau faced major barriers in accessing information. How was the Government ensuring that freedom of speech and access to information, including the mass media, was available to persons with disabilities in Palau? What efforts was the Government making to enable deaf persons to access information in the State party?
Persons with disabilities in Palau did not have equal access to education; what was the Government doing to provide an enabling environment for education for persons with disabilities, including for deaf and blind persons? The Government should provide an enabling environment for everyone to enjoy education equally.
How accessible was the medical environment for persons with disabilities? Could blind people communicate with medical staff via braille? How was it ensured that all persons with disabilities could enjoy medical facilities in the hospitals?
What efforts was the Government of Palau making to ensure equal opportunities were provided when it came to employment for persons with disabilities? For those working, what was being done to provide them with an enabling environment? Were ramps and elevators available to allow them to navigate their workplaces? What training was given to employers in this regard?
Palau’s law said persons with mental and intellectual disabilities were not allowed to participate in elections, including voting. Was there any percentage within the law mandating persons with disabilities to be elected to government positions? If persons with disabilities wanted to vote, how accessible was the environment? Were there ramps and sign language? What was the Government doing to ensure that persons with disabilities were given a fair chance to participate in politics?
What was Palau doing to ensure people with disabilities could access cultural life and leisure, including sports? Were people with disabilities in Palau participating in sports? What efforts was the Government making to encourage their participation?
GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, asked how information on medical records, such as from institutions and mental health systems, was protected? How would data protection for persons with disabilities be strengthened, particularly for those with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities?
What specific initiatives were in place to strengthen awareness raising regarding persons with disabilities, particularly regarding the rights to family and parenthood? How would it be ensured that persons with disabilities could start their own families or adopt children if they chose?
GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce for Palau, asked if there were plans to undertake an analysis of rehabilitation services, and ensure they were in line with the Convention? Were there plans to develop a comprehensive strategy and policy around assistive devices and technologies?
GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, said the majority of social protection actions in Palau happened at home. What mechanisms were in place to support social protection and families and the disability-related expenses of individuals? How would the Government address the lower level of disability pensions? What was being done to raise the disability pension? Did persons with disabilities who worked in Palau still receive the disability allowance?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said sign language and audio-visual equipment in schools and classrooms were among the State’s weak points. Palau did provide equal opportunities for persons with disabilities to express themselves through the media, but the lack of sign language was an issue. Work was being done with the Ministry of Education to equip teachers and schools, and then this would be branched out to the media. There had been two cases in Palau where youth with disabilities had graduated from high school and college through vocational studies. Palau’s Ministry of Education received some funding from the United States Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which was a starting point to train teachers.
At present, Palau did not have training for doctors and teachers, but this was something the State was working on. Most clinics in the hospitals were designed to be accessible, but the main challenge was sign language. Women and children with disabilities had free access to information, and a healthcare provider was assigned to every person with disability who came in. The State recognised there was more to be done and was working to enhance this area.
Legislation obligated the Government to ensure persons with disabilities had ramps in the places where they were hired and working. This legislation just covered the public sector currently and was yet to cover the private sector, which was a shortfall. There were around 33 persons with disabilities working in Palau’s Government, which was an impressive number considering the country’s population. Due to cultural beliefs in Palau, families of persons with disabilities sometimes did not encourage them to work due to fear of stigma and bullying, which was a challenge.
Palau election personnel were not equipped to provide braille. Currently, if a person with a disability wished to vote, an election official had to vote for them which meant the voting was no longer private; the State was working to address this. Palau would work to change the law on voting for persons with intellectual disabilities, as this was an outdated law. Nothing barred persons with disabilities for running for public office. There were no quotas in place for persons with disabilities to run for office in Palau. There were no political parties in Palau, everyone ran individually. No one was barred from running for Government.
Discussions had been underway to join the Paralympics. Palau would be hosting Pacific mini games, and there would be considerations for persons with disabilities to join such events. Family members presented a challenge; they sometimes felt their family members with disabilities would be a source of shame to the family and prohibited them from participating publicly, particularly when it came to sports. The Government was working to help families feel confident in allowing their family members with disabilities to participate in the public view.
Patient records and confidential information was closely safeguarded in the Ministry of Health and in clinics. This applied to all patient records, including for persons with disabilities. It was expected the medical privacy act would be enacted in one to two years.
Palau had an inclusive culture; there were no cultural barriers preventing persons with disabilities from getting married or raising children. There were persons with disabilities in Palau who had birthed and raised children and enjoyed the fruits of a full family life, with community support.
There were efforts to create an appropriate list of assistive products from the World Health Organization list, to ensure they were appropriate for the Pacific region. Rehabilitation was still regarded as a medical or clinical service, which was a challenge. A rehabilitation department was now going out to the community to train caregivers and family members to assist those with specific needs.
Palau had the Severely Disabled Assistance Fund which had been increased in the past year, to ensure persons with disabilities could afford the cost of living. There was a newly established child raising subsidy, provided to all Palau children under the age of 18. The pension and social security amounts were always a hotly debated issue in Palau’s Congress. The State would continue to push for an increase in funds for beneficiaries. The Assistance Fund did not include deaf people, which was something which needed to be amended. Palau was looking to increase the minimum wage this year, which would benefit persons with disabilities who were employed.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert asked how many persons with disabilities participated in tertiary education in Palau? What kind of reasonable accommodations were provided to these students? The Committee frowned upon the continued use of sheltered workshops to stimulate employment of persons with disabilities. What was the extent of sheltered workshops in Palau and what was being done to remove them from the labour market?
Another Expert asked about the Government actions to ensure access to education for persons with disabilities. How were these being implemented? Were there any incentives for persons with disabilities to run for public office? The Expert congratulated Palau’s involvement in the Paralympics. It was hoped this would be the first of many.
An Expert asked if persons with disabilities were given the same wages as the rest of the population?
One Committee Expert asked what Palau was doing to raise awareness in the population, so no one was left behind or neglected? What was being done to put an end to discrimination against persons with disabilities?
A Committee Expert asked if Palau had any experiences with accessible tourism, and if it was using this as a tool for economic growth? Had Palau requested technical cooperation to increase the flow of tourists with disabilities? Was Palau considering job creation and entrepreneurship for persons with disabilities? Had the State thought about establishing a national centre for arts and crafts which could showcase the products made by persons with disabilities?
GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, asked if people working in Palau still received the disability allowance?
GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce for Palau, asked if there were any plans to address policy areas regarding the right to vote for persons with intellectual disabilities?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Palau only had one community college which provided a two-year associate degree. However, persons with disabilities did attend college, including one individual who graduated from a mechanics course. The college was not entirely equipped, but did make accommodation for the specific needs of students.
There were no agencies, companies or businesses which only employed persons with disabilities in Palau. Palau had a law which required all students to attend kindergarten to grade 12, including children with disabilities. Minimum wage laws in Palau applied to everyone, including persons with disabilities who received the same wage and tax refund benefits which applied to a certain band of salary earners. Overall, Palauan culture was very accepting. Non-governmental organizations in Palau helped the Government to raise awareness in the community, ensuring inclusiveness in all events and policies. There was no specific budget for sports activities for persons with disabilities, but this was something the Government would look into.
Palau was regarded as a good tourism destination. However, it was expensive to get there, and there were rarely tourists who were persons with disabilities. The Government aimed to ensure their own citizens with disabilities were taken care of before tourists. There were workshops with local crafts and a giftshop, where persons with disabilities could sell their artwork. There was also a national museum and it could be a good idea to hold a special exhibition there for persons with disabilities.
The Palau Severely Disabled Fund was for those who had no employment, and if they were gainfully employed, they lost this eligibility. There were only two main non-governmental organizations in Palau working to represent persons with disabilities, but the population was small. They were given the right to decide who they employed and who they allowed to represent them. The Government did not want to overstep and dictate in this regard.
Closing Remarks
JEFFREY ANTOL, Director, Bureau of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of State of Palau and head of the delegation, extended appreciation to the Committee and all those who had contributed to the dialogue. Palau firmly believed that inclusion was not merely a policy goal, but a fundamental human right. The enactment of the persons with disabilities act and the development of the national disability inclusive policy marked significant milestones in the journey towards full alignment with the Convention. Palau was more convinced than ever of the urgent need to undertake legislative review and the importance of data and reporting, and would take steps to facilitate these actions. The country remained steadfast in ensuring that no one was left behind.
GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, thanked the members of the delegation of Palau for their presence and the open dialogue with the Committee. The State was commended for its commitment in working towards the implementation of the Convention. The Committee acknowledged with interest the establishment of the Committee of Persons with Disabilities and looked forward to its action as planned. There was a need for the State to strengthen systems and ensure effective and meaningful participation of persons with disabilities. The absence of a national human rights institution was a concern; the Committee urged Palau to consider its establishment in line with the Paris Principles. From the goodwill expressed by the delegation, it was expected that the State would proactively ensure the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CRPD25.007E
Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister
The Prime Minister and Canada’s new government are focused on what matters most right now: creating more higher-paying jobs, building new trade relationships with reliable partners, and making Canada more secure.
To that end, the Prime Minister announced today that he will travel to Paris, France, London, United Kingdom, and Iqaluit, Nunavut, from March 16 to 18, 2025, to strengthen two of our closest and longest-standing economic and security partnerships, and to reaffirm Canada’s Arctic security and sovereignty.
In Paris, Prime Minister Carney will meet with the President of France, Emmanuel Macron. With the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement as the foundation, the leaders will focus on their shared commitment to build stronger economic, commercial, and defence ties. Prime Minister Carney will also emphasize Canada’s work to unleash the innovative and economic potential of artificial intelligence (AI) safely and responsibly.
In London, Prime Minister Carney will meet with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Keir Starmer. Their discussions will focus on strengthening transatlantic security, growing the AI sector, and the strong commercial relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom. The prime ministers will explore ways to deepen bilateral trade through the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Prime Minister Carney will also have an audience with His Majesty King Charles III.
The Prime Minister will then travel to Iqaluit, Nunavut, on March 18 to reassert Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic. He will meet with members of the Iqaluit Patrol of 1 Canadian Rangers Patrol Group – a group critical to Arctic stability and security.
Prime Minister Carney will also meet with the Premier of Nunavut, P.J. Akeeagok, to learn more about the evolving needs and priorities of Arctic and Northern communities. He will reaffirm the new government’s support for growing a stronger economy across the North, reinforcing its sovereignty and security, and emphasizing our continued commitment to advancing reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis throughout the country.
“Canada was built upon a union of peoples – Indigenous, French, and British. My visit to France and the United Kingdom will strengthen trade, commercial, and defence ties with two of our strongest and most reliable partners, and my visit to Nunavut will be an opportunity to bolster Canada’s Arctic sovereignty and security, and our plan to unlock the North’s full economic potential.”
Source: City of Winchester
The interim proposal which has been developed by the 15 councils in Hampshire and the Solent region outlines guiding principles that should be followed when developing plans for local government reorganisation across the Hampshire and Solent area of councils. It outlines how the councils are working together and seeks clarity and assurance from government on five specific challenges.
The interim proposal does not contain proposals for what the new unitary councils will look like or what geography they will cover at this stage. However, it does state that analysis will consider existing economic geographies, principally those around Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton and Portsmouth. Further detailed work is needed before this can happen and importantly, the opportunity for the public to have their say before final plans are submitted.
As well as the interim report to government, the report also sets out the council’s commitment to its council plan and ensuring staff, policies, services and assets that would be transferred are in the best possible position for integration to a new authority. Alongside the priorities in the Council Plan, key highlights include delivering Central Winchester Regeneration, adopting the Local Plan, ensuring council homes are well managed and securing Winchester City status alongside protecting the historic position of the Mayor of Winchester.
Leader of the Council, Cllr Martin Tod says:
‘It’s a real strength that we have got all 15 councils working together across Hampshire and the Solent and have come to a common set of principles to work against.
Agreeing these principles early puts the focus on the needs of our local communities and recognises the importance of using a sense of place and identity to set boundaries. Importantly for us, they recognise the importance of Winchester and its economic geography.
But this is going to be a hugely challenging project. We have highlighted five barriers that we need absolute clarity and assurance from government on if reorganisation across Hampshire and the Solent is to succeed.’
From my perspective, the first thing we need clarity on is the Isle of Wight. Can they be a council on their own? Local council leaders all agree on this. It’s an island. It makes no sense for them to be in a council with someone else. If the Government can’t reassure us on that, the next stage of the process becomes almost impossible.
The second problem is the money. Hampshire is broke. Reorganising councils won’t stop them being broke. And there’s no point in creating new unitary councils if they immediately go bust.
The third problem is pressure on services. The rapid increase in adults needing care, children needing special educational support and the travel to get to it, and people becoming homeless and needing somewhere to live means councils’ costs are going up much faster than the money coming in. We need an answer from the Government on that too.
The fourth problem is the size of councils and whether we have to use boundaries of the districts created in 1974. Some of these are out of date and don’t reflect where and how people live now – and the communities they identify with. We need to know whether and how we can change them.
And finally, there’s timing. We did this initial work in a month. We need the time to properly design new services and consult those local communities that will be most affected. Not loads of time! But even moving from September to November will help.
The City Council will be deciding next week whether this direction of travel makes sense. And whether the work we’re doing as a council makes sense. If we have assurances from the Government on the five challenges, and we can keep working together productively as 15 councils, I believe we can find a way to better, stronger plans that will better service people in Hampshire and the Solent – and here in the Winchester District.’
The paper will be debated at full council on 19 March, before being referred to Cabinet for a decision on 20 March
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
SINGAPORE, March 15, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — With Bitcoin’s price fluctuating below $100,000, many analysts predict a prolonged period of high volatility in the crypto market. Holding spot positions may struggle to generate short-term profits in such conditions. As a result, 100x leverage futures trading has become the preferred tool for seasoned investors looking to maximize potential gains in this volatile market. BexBack Exchange is ramping up its efforts to offer traders unmatched promotional packages. The platform now features a 100% deposit bonus, a $50 welcome bonus for new users, and 100x leverage on cryptocurrency trading, providing exceptional opportunities for investors.
What Is 100x Leverage and How Does It Work?
Simply put, 100x leverage allows you to open larger trading positions with less capital. For example:
Suppose the Bitcoin price is $100,000 that day, and you open a long contract with 1 BTC. After using 100x leverage, the transaction amount is equivalent to 100 BTC.
One day later, if the price rises to $105,000, your profit will be (105,000 – 100,000) * 100 BTC / 100,000 = 5 BTC, a yield of up to 500%.
With BexBack’s deposit bonus
BexBack offers a 100% deposit bonus. If the initial investment is 2 BTC, the profit will increase to 10 BTC, and the return on investment will double to 1000%.
Note: Although leveraged trading can magnify profits, you also need to be wary of liquidation risks.
How Does the 100% Deposit Bonus Work?
The deposit bonus from BexBack cannot be directly withdrawn but can be used to open larger positions and increase potential profits. Additionally, during significant market fluctuations, the bonus can serve as extra margin, effectively reducing the risk of liquidation.
About BexBack?
BexBack is a leading cryptocurrency derivatives platform that offers 100x leverage on BTC, ETH, ADA, SOL, and XRP futures contracts. It is headquartered in Singapore with offices in Hong Kong, Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Argentina. It holds a US MSB (Money Services Business) license and is trusted by more than 500,000 traders worldwide. Accepts users from the United States, Canada, and Europe. There are no deposit fees, and traders can get the most thoughtful service, including 24/7 customer support.
Why recommend BexBack?
No KYC Required: Start trading immediately without complex identity verification.
100% Deposit Bonus: Double your funds, double your profits.
High-Leverage Trading: Offers up to 100x leverage, maximizing investors’ capital efficiency.
Demo Account: Comes with 10 BTC in virtual funds, ideal for beginners to practice risk-free trading.
Comprehensive Trading Options: Feature-rich trading available via Web and mobile applications.
Convenient Operation: No slippage, no spread, and fast, precise trade execution.
Global User Support: Enjoy 24/7 customer service, no matter where you are.
Lucrative Affiliate Rewards: Earn up to 50% commission, perfect for promoters.
Take Action Now—Don’t Miss Another Opportunity!
If you missed the previous crypto bull run, this could be your chance. With BexBack’s 100x leverage and 100% deposit bonus and $50 bonus for new users (complete one trade within one week of registration), you can be a winner in the new bull run.
Sign up on BexBack now, claim your exclusive bonus and start accumulating more BTC today!
Website: www.bexback.com
Contact: business@bexback.com
Contact:
Amanda
business@bexback.com
Disclaimer: This content is provided by BexBack. The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the content provider and do not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. We do not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information presented. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice. Investing in crypto and mining related opportunities involves significant risks, including the potential loss of capital. Readers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. However, due to the inherently speculative nature of the blockchain sector–including cryptocurrency, NFTs, and mining–complete accuracy cannot always be guaranteed. Neither the media platform nor the publisher shall be held responsible for any fraudulent activities, misrepresentations, or financial losses arising from the content of this press release.
Photos accompanying this announcement are available at
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/d8e4f9d5-733c-4f2d-ae59-f090c4d12acf
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/66abe146-1313-4406-8203-172b691970d4
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/d2a4935e-2679-4e80-bf28-41777a645561
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/e120da17-985e-46ec-97b5-53f836fdcff8
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
Issuance of shares
Reference is made to the stock exchange announcement published earlier today by BW Energy Limited (“BW Energy” or the “Company”) regarding the settlement of RSUs by issuance of shares in the Company in order to settle RSUs under BW Energy’s Long Term Incentive Program (LTIP).
Following the issuance of shares, there are 258,066,021 issued shares in the Company, each with a nominal value of USD 0.01, all of which have been validly and legally issued and fully paid.
For further information, please contact:
Brice Morlot, CFO BW Energy, ir@bwenergy.no
About BW Energy:
BW Energy is a growth E&P company with a differentiated strategy targeting proven offshore oil and gas reservoirs through low risk phased developments. The Company has access to existing production facilities to reduce time to first oil and cashflow with lower investments than traditional offshore developments. The Company’s assets are 73.5% of the producing Dussafu Marine licence offshore Gabon, 100% interest in the Golfinho and Camarupim fields, a 76.5% interest in the BM-ES-23 block, a 95% interest in the Maromba field in Brazil, and a 95% interest in the Kudu field in Namibia, all operated by BW Energy. In addition, BW Energy holds approximately 6.6% of the common shares in Reconnaissance Energy Africa Ltd. and a 20% non-operating interest in the onshore Petroleum Exploration License 73 (“PEL 73”) in Namibia. Total net 2P+2C reserves and resources were 580 million barrels of oil equivalent at the start of 2024.
This information is subject to the disclosure requirements pursuant to section 5-12 of the Norwegian Securities Trading Act.
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
Nokia Corporation
Stock Exchange Release
14 March 2025 at 22:30 EET
Nokia Corporation: Repurchase of own shares on 14.03.2025
Espoo, Finland – On 14 March 2025 Nokia Corporation (LEI: 549300A0JPRWG1KI7U06) has acquired its own shares (ISIN FI0009000681) as follows:
| Trading venue (MIC Code) | Number of shares | Weighted average price / share, EUR* |
| XHEL | 2,431,999 | 4.87 |
| CEUX | 1,376,481 | 4.87 |
| BATE | – | – |
| AQEU | 169,328 | 4.88 |
| TQEX | – | – |
| Total | 3,977,808 | 4.87 |
* Rounded to two decimals
On 22 November 2024, Nokia announced that its Board of Directors is initiating a share buyback program to offset the dilutive effect of new Nokia shares issued to the shareholders of Infinera Corporation and certain Infinera Corporation share-based incentives. The repurchases in compliance with the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) 596/2014 (MAR), the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1052 and under the authorization granted by Nokia’s Annual General Meeting on 3 April 2024 started on 25 November 2024 and end by 31 December 2025 and target to repurchase 150 million shares for a maximum aggregate purchase price of EUR 900 million.
Total cost of transactions executed on 14 March 2025 was EUR 19 391 018. After the disclosed transactions, Nokia Corporation holds 172 084 787 treasury shares.
Details of transactions are included as an appendix to this announcement.
On behalf of Nokia Corporation
BofA Securities Europe SA
About Nokia
At Nokia, we create technology that helps the world act together.
As a B2B technology innovation leader, we are pioneering networks that sense, think and act by leveraging our work across mobile, fixed and cloud networks. In addition, we create value with intellectual property and long-term research, led by the award-winning Nokia Bell Labs which is celebrating 100 years of innovation.
With truly open architectures that seamlessly integrate into any ecosystem, our high-performance networks create new opportunities for monetization and scale. Service providers, enterprises and partners worldwide trust Nokia to deliver secure, reliable and sustainable networks today – and work with us to create the digital services and applications of the future.
Inquiries:
Nokia Communications
Phone: +358 10 448 4900
Email: press.services@nokia.com
Maria Vaismaa, Global Head of External Communications
Nokia Investor Relations
Phone: +358 931 580 507
Email: investor.relations@nokia.com
Attachment
Source: Scottish Greens
The UK must close the loopholes in the sanctions placed on Russia.
The UK Government must take action to end the operations of a Glasgow-based company key to Russia’s gas exports says Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer.
Writing to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Jonathan Reynolds MP, Greer accused unethical businesses of exploiting loopholes in the sanctions placed on Russia and supporting their brutal invasion of Ukraine.
Raising the example of Seapeak Maritime Ltd, based in Glasgow and London, Greer noted that the company operates seven oil tankers which export Russian liquified natural gas from Siberia to Europe.
Mr Greer said:
“It’s been three years since Russia launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine, and over a decade since they seized Crimea. Their brutal and illegal war has left hundreds of thousands dead or wounded and forced many more to flee for safety.
“Scotland has taken a firm position in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, but Seapeak operating from an office in Glasgow shames and undermines our efforts.
“The Russian war machine is dependent in no small part on the profits made by their gas exports. I’m glad the UK Government has sanctioned many individuals and companies who have aided the Kremlin, but for some reason Seapeak remains untouched. They’ve made a fortune from shipping gas out of Russia, throwing a lifeline to Putin’s war economy as a result.
“It’s time for Seapeak’s operations here to be shut down and their ships sanctioned. Ukraine desperately needs our help if it is to survive the Russian onslaught and Trump’s betrayal. The least we do is stop companies based here from enabling Putin’s regime.”
The Green MSP has worked with Ukrainian NGO Razom We Stand since the full-scale invasion began and it was through their efforts that Seapeak’s activities were uncovered.
Speaking on behalf of Razom We Stand, founder and executive director of the organisation, Svitlana Romanko says:
“Three years into Russia’s full-scale invasion in Ukraine, we are disheartened to see that the UK and Scottish governments still allow Glasgow-based Seapeak to bring Russian gas to Europe and profit from this ongoing gas trade.
“Let’s be brutally honest – the fossil fuel industry choosing blood money over basic human decency comes as no surprise to anyone. Every tanker of Russian gas that sets sail spits in the face of both morality and global security. They’re just counting their cash while Ukraine burns.
“With Seapeak’s vessels openly trading Russian LNG on the spot market, without constraints, both the UK and Scottish governments’ continued inaction is nothing short of complicity. There’s no grey area here – this is brazen war profiteering happening in Glasgow, right inside Britain itself.
“Each day the British and Scottish governments hesitate to curtail this home-based trade only serves to strengthen Putin’s ability to wage his war against Ukraine and Europe.
“This Arctic gas that Seapeak transports, represents a double catastrophe; funding Russian aggression in Ukraine and unleashing enormous carbon emissions making a mockery of our climate commitments.
“And it’s not only about Ukraine. The Kremlin’s continued efforts to expand its gas export infrastructure in the Arctic leads to environmental devastation and massive carbon emissions, directly undermining the urgently needed response to the climate crisis.”
Letter to Secretary of State for Business and Trade
Jonathan Reynolds MP
Secretary of State for Business and Trade
By Email
7th March 2025
Ending indirect support for Russia via LNG exports
Dear Jonathan,
As I’m sure you are aware, Russia’s brutal and illegal war against Ukraine is dependent to a significant extent on the economic returns generated by the export of fossil fuels. Three years into this war governments and businesses across the world, including our own, have adopted a wide range of measures to ensure that they are not complicit in Putin’s horrific crimes through engagement with the Russian energy industry. These measures remain incomplete however, and loopholes are being exploited by businesses who have no objection to supporting the Russian war economy.
Last year my office was made aware of the case of Seapeak Maritime Ltd, operating out of Glasgow and London. Seapeak is involved with Yamal LNG, Russia’s largest LNG plant, as well as private joint stock company Novatek, their largest LNG exporter and second-largest gas producer.
Seven LNG tankers, the Yakov Gakkel, Eduard Toll, Nikolay Yevgenov, Vladimir Voronin, Georgiy Ushakov, Rudolf Samoylovich and Seapeak Yamal appear to have been travelling from the Yamal LNG port at Sabetta in Siberia to different European destinations. The Sabetta port is a joint venture of Novatek and the Russian state. All seven of these ships are managed and operated by Seapeak Maritime Ltd and Seapeak Maritime Glasgow Ltd.
Last year I worked with the Ukrainian NGO Razom We Stand and with Sky News to break this story. To my knowledge, Seapeak’s activities since then have not changed and they continue to play a key role in Russian LNG exports by operating roughly one third of all the tankers used for this work. I commend your expansion of sanctions against Russia’s so-called ‘shadow fleet’ and would urge you to take similar action against Seapeak and its fleet immediately.
I would be happy to provide your officials with further information compiled by my office and Razom We Stand, if that would be of use.
Best wishes,
Ross Greer MSP
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Arkansas Tom Cotton
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Caroline Tabler or Patrick McCann (202) 224-2353
March 14, 2025
Arkansas Delegation to European Commission: Fix Unworkable Deforestation Rules
Washington, D.C. — Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), John Boozman (R-Arkansas), and Congressmen Rick Crawford (Arkansas-01), French Hill (Arkansas-02), Steve Womack (Arkansas-03), and Bruce Westerman (Arkansas-04) today sent a letter to the European Union raising major concerns with the proposed European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). This impractical regulation will impose an unfair and unnecessary burden on American businesses while failing to effectively combat deforestation.
In part, the lawmakers wrote:
“This regulation is unworkable for the forest products industry in the United States and would jeopardize more than $3.5 billion worth of paper and wood products shipping into the EU market for essential products like timber or pulp for baby diapers.”
Full text of the letter may be found here and below.
March 14, 2025
Valdis Dombrovskis, European Commissioner for Economy and Productivity
Jessica Roswall, European Commissioner for Environment
Marcos Sefcovic, Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security
Dear Commissioners,
We write to you today to share our significant concerns with the European Union deforestation-free supply chains regulation (Regulation (EU) No 2023/1115) and to share our perspective on the impact this will have on the more than 900,000 forest products workers throughout the United States and the over 23,000 men and women in Arkansas who are employed by this industry. This regulation is unworkable for the forest products industry in the United States and would jeopardize more than $3.5 billion worth of paper and wood products shipping into the EU market for essential products like timber or pulp for baby diapers.
The U.S. Forest products industry is a strong proponent of international efforts to suppress deforestation and forest degradation. As such, the United States has excellent ratings in this regard and no evidence of deforestation. Unfortunately, as written, this regulation presents severe compliance challenges that constitute technical barriers to trade for the U.S. Forest products industry. The United States is not a source of the EU’s deforestation concerns and the burden this regulation puts on U.S. pulp, paper, and packaging manufacturers will not achieve the EU’s stated policy goal. Furthermore, the U.S. is widely recognized for its sustainable forestry practices, with negligible deforestation risk, as confirmed by the EU Observatory on deforestation and forest degradation.
The unprecedented and over-prescriptive reporting requirements of the regulation are a one-size-fits-all approach that does not recognize commodity-specific challenges or country differences. The U.S. Forest products sector operates with deep visibility into their supply chains, with clear management rules and strict controls of forestry practices. These practices and performance measures not only deliver the intended goals of EUDR but go beyond the narrow objectives of regulation.
We are asking you and the European Commission to work with the United States to ensure the United States is recognized as the lowest possible risk for deforestation and to ensure the geolocation traceability requirements in place are proportional to the level of risk for a particular country. These obligations should be simplified, more proportional and with greater distinction among the risk categories. The geospatial coordinate mapping requirement for every individual plot of land should be removed for supply chains that have already achieved deforestation risk status as low risk, negligible, or insignificant. Secondary materials should be exempt from geolocation because traceability is virtually impossible. Unless these key problems are addressed, I am extremely concerned that the EU may lose their trading relationship with the U.S. Forest products industry, which they rely upon every day.
We also believe the EUDR fits within President Trump’s “America First Trade Policy” executive order that was signed on January 20th, 2025, and requires key members of his cabinet to identify examples around the world where the United States is being disadvantaged by policies in place from governments that could be considered a technical barrier to trade and submit reports to President Trump by April 1st, 2025. Already, key members of the President’s cabinet, like Mr. Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce, have identified the EUDR as a potential technical barrier to trade and it will be more important than ever that you and your team address the concerns we have identified here.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,