Latest news with #NinetoNoon
Scoop
28-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
First-ever Global Shipping Emissions Levy Approved, But Pacific Push For Stronger Deal Fails
But a Pacific push for stronger deal failed at the International Maritime Organisation meeting in Londom last companies will soon have to pay for carbon emissions produced by its vessels for the first time, but the new deal agreed by the global maritime watchdog is still significantly lower than what was demanded by Pacific Island nations. The shipping emissions framework was finalised by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) at its meeting last month in London. While it is yet to be ratified, a formal vote in October on its adoption is expected to be successful. The IMO is the UN agency responsible for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by ships in international waters. Once implemented, the proposed global emissions scheme would subject ships to a charge on their greenhouse gas emissions. After a certain threshold, that charge is increased, as set out by the finalised framework. Ships would also have the ability to trade carbon credits under the scheme. Overall, the scheme is expected to generate about US$10 billion a year – a fraction of the $60b a year Pacific and Caribbean nations wanted in their own carbon levy pitch for the framework. UCL Energy Institute's Dr Tristan Smith, a professor of energy and transport, told RNZ Nine to Noon that, while agreement on a global emissions scheme is significant and likely a world-first, it could have been more robust. 'In climate terms, and as a scientist, it's always frustrating because you know what needs to be done in order to keep us on the temperature goals that we've talked about in the Paris agreement,' he said. However, achieving that in practice, he said, 'is always incredibly difficult because of the politics of climate negotiations'. 'We also had a particularly difficult time this year with the geopolitical situation, referring to the fact that the Trump administration has taken a strong anti-climate stance, which put the US in a very different position to how they were in previous administrations, and changed the dynamics of the IMO a bit.' Membership of the IMO includes 176 states and more than 150 intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations. Dr Smith said the end result of negotiations between various member parties on the proposed scheme resulted in a significantly lower carbon price for shipping emissions than what he believed was needed. 'In the final package, we've got about a $15 per ton of greenhouse gas emitted price that's coming in, and we thought that we needed somewhere between 100 and $150. 'It's a significant reduction, but it still exists and it's still a global agreement, which I believe makes it the first global carbon price.' As recently as February, Pacific nations had proposed a more ambitious global shipping emissions scheme. Not only had the agreed IMO framework failed to meet that, it had also failed in achieving the IMO's own greenhouse gas strategy which it revised in 2023. Smith said Pacific nations wanted a much tougher scheme to effectively drive the transition of the shipping sector to a low carbon model by charging higher costs for greenhouse gas emitters. 'Their vision was to have this transition of the shipping sector driven by a carbon levy – a universal price on greenhouse gas emissions that charged for every ton of greenhouse gas emissions about $150. 'Then coupling that with a mandate that reinforced the fact that this was going to be driven by stringent regulation [like] a hard fine or a penalty if you weren't reducing your emissions and driving a very steep reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, reaching nearly full decarbonisation by 2040.' Dr Smith said that 'steepness' in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and 'power' through a heavy levy was missing. He said that in turn had effectively hampered the rate at which decarbonisation of the shipping industry would likely occur. 'Because we could really subsidise some of the very expensive, or currently very expensive solutions…at the early stage of decarbonisation and really enable companies to have the confidence to invest in scale. 'But also use significant amounts of revenue to help low income countries, not just [small island developing states and least developed countries] like the Pacific island states, but also middle income countries, low income countries, which will need support as we go through the transition.' He said these countries would need assistance to modernise and shift their their own shipping industries to a low-carbon model. The cost of doing that, as well as the economic impacts of increasing transport prices, must be factored in, he added. The finalised framework, which needs two-thirds of the IMO membership vote in October to be ratified, would cover all ships bigger than 5000 gross tons, such as largo cargo ships, in international waters if implemented. Dr Smith believes that eventually it would also cover ships smaller than 5000 gross tons. At that point, all vessels that trade internationally would be captured by the shipping emissions scheme. 'It doesn't drive or change what national governments do with domestically operated ships. So coastal vessels servicing the coast of New Zealand, or ferries within New Zealand wouldn't be affected by this regulation. That's down to the national government to decide what to do,' he said. 'In some ways though, that exactly illustrates why it's such a significant agreement, because it's the missing emissions in international waters that no one was counting that are now, at least in a framework here.' Dr Smith expectes the October vote on the final framework to be successful, despite previous opposition from several larger nations like Saudi Arabia, China, and Brazil. Following that, the scheme was set to be fully implemented in 2027. The UN said that timeframe would give 'the industry time to adapt to new requirements and invest in alternative fuels and technologies'.
Scoop
23-05-2025
- Health
- Scoop
'I Can Confirm They Are Hypotheticals Drawn Largely From Anecdotes And Issues The Minister Has Heard About.'
Ian Powell discusses when health professions regulatory authorities policy is shaped by second hand anecdotes and issues. Before reading further hold on to the words in my heading above. Then consider who said, 'I can confirm they are hypotheticals drawn largely from anecdotes and issues the minister has heard about'. Further, who did the comment refer to, what was its context and meaning, and what is the significance of this meaning? The context is a review of the regulatory health professions presently being undertaken by the Ministry of Health for Health Minister Simeon Brown. However, the ideological origin of the review is the coalition Government agreement between the National and Act parties. Regulation of health professions is covered by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. Its overriding purpose was to provide a framework for the regulation of health practitioners to protect the public where there is a risk of harm from professional practice. The Act included the requirement for scopes of practice for each of the regulated occupations. Eighteen regulatory authorities cover 26 professions. The authorities that cover the largest professions are the Medical and Nursing Councils. Health Ministry discussion document As part of the review the health ministry published a discussion document under the misleading 'milk and honey' title of 'Putting Patients First: Modernising health regulation'. But drill down further and a more sinister picture emerges. My drilling down was recently published by Newsroom (24 April): Threatening political meddling in health regulatory authorities. My main points about this discussion document were: It is based on a false construct that too much regulatory 'red tape' was making it more difficult to ensuring that New Zealanders 'have access to timely, quality healthcare'. There was a complete absence of evidence to justify its contentions. In fact, contentions were contradicted by evidence. It is ideologically loaded and weak arguing by insinuations and with an obviously pre-determined outcome in mind. It raised several questionable scenarios to justify regulatory change that could, in fact, be resolved within the existing system (discussed further below). The biggest threat implicit in the document was political interference in the functioning of the regulatory authorities thereby weaking their responsibility to protect the public from harm. The risks for patients being diagnosed and treated by the medical profession was succinctly outlined by the Chair of the Medical Council, Dr Rachelle Love (a Christchurch head and neck surgeon) on Radio New Zealand's Nine to Noon programme (8 May): Increased political control risk. In rebutting the claims of the Ministry's discussion document, Dr Love said that what it proposed risked leading to increased political control. Instead, the real issue was the retention of doctors which was ignored by the Ministry. General practitioners don't pull their punches Steve Forbes in a paywalled article published by NZ Doctor (17 April) reported Dr Angus Chambers, general practitioner and Chair of the General Practices Owners Association (GenPro) concerns. The latter was at his forthright best. He described the consultation practice for the Health Ministry's discussion document as poorly designed and amounted to a consultation process with a preordained outcome. If implemented, it would lower both standards of care and clinical safety guidelines. Dr Chambers assessed the process as being 'completely cynical' adding, as reported by Forbes, that: There are good reasons for the different specialised regulatory authorities to oversee various health professionals, he says. But he is concerned the consultation paper is designed to get a 'quick-fix response from the public'. Further: Opening the floodgates to new, less-qualified health professionals, such as physician associates, to plug workforce gaps isn't the solution, Dr Chambers says. 'If we had enough GPs, we wouldn't need these additional professions.' General practitioner and Chair of Women in Medicine Dr Orna McGinn also questioned the credibility of the process in her LinkedIn page: The document presents a case to further politicise the health landscape via deregulation and undermining of commitments to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and thereby address inequities in health access and outcomes. We note that two government statements concerning practitioner scope and regulation were published before closure of the consultation period. This raises doubts as to the validity and legality of the process. Scenarios scam The dubious use of the above-mentioned scenarios in the Ministry of Health's discussion document to justify the 'preordained outcome' highlighted by Dr Chambers unsurprisingly attracted strong and angry responses. No wonder than NZ Nurses Organisation Chief Executive Paul Goulter called it poor quality and that it should be withdrawn. The scenarios led to the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (ASMS) formally complain to both the Public Services Commissioner and Director-General of Health over their use. Two of the scenarios claimed that podiatrists being unable to prescribe some feet medicines and approval for new occupational groups, such as physician associates, were being obstructed by the existing regulatory system. Soon after the Health Ministry released its discussion document, approval for both issues occurred. The former made sense while the latter (which was a ministerial decision) did not. But both demonstrated that working through the existing regulatory system led to the sought outcomes. ASMS meanwhile also pursued the scenarios controversy with the Health Ministry under the Official Information Act. The response from a Ministry official to ASMS, as reported in another paywalled Forbes article (6 May) was: I can confirm they are hypotheticals drawn largely from anecdotes and issues the minister has heard about. The answers to my opening questions The official's response reinforces what many suspected. The Ministry's discussion document was largely written from within Health Minister's office. A feature of his office is the absence of health system experience understanding, including about the intent of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act discussed above, is poor. Returning to my above opening questions, the Health Ministry made the comment, and it was referring to their health minister Simeon Brown. The context was a false construct that the health professions regulatory authorities were contributing to the health workforce crisis. The meaning was that political involvement was required even though this poses serious risks to the authorities prime legislative responsibility to protect the public from harm. As for the significance of its meaning it highlights the serious risks of harm to the health and wellbeing of the public (and to health professionals) when decision-making is ideologically driven and designed by those with at best minimal health system experience. No wonder, as I observed in my above-mentioned Newsroom article, the failure of the discussion document's authors was not being able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. They should have listened to Jonathan Swift. Given the ideological origin and consequential high level of predetermination they never had even a dog's chance.
Scoop
23-05-2025
- Health
- Scoop
'I Can Confirm They Are Hypotheticals Drawn Largely From Anecdotes And Issues The Minister Has Heard About.'
Before reading further hold on to the words in my heading above. Then consider who said, 'I can confirm they are hypotheticals drawn largely from anecdotes and issues the minister has heard about'. Further, who did the comment refer to, what was its context and meaning, and what is the significance of this meaning? The context is a review of the regulatory health professions presently being undertaken by the Ministry of Health for Health Minister Simeon Brown. However, the ideological origin of the review is the coalition Government agreement between the National and Act parties. Regulation of health professions is covered by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. Its overriding purpose was to provide a framework for the regulation of health practitioners to protect the public where there is a risk of harm from professional practice. The Act included the requirement for scopes of practice for each of the regulated occupations. Eighteen regulatory authorities cover 26 professions. The authorities that cover the largest professions are the Medical and Nursing Councils. Health Ministry discussion document As part of the review the health ministry published a discussion document under the misleading 'milk and honey' title of 'Putting Patients First: Modernising health regulation'. But drill down further and a more sinister picture emerges. My drilling down was recently published by Newsroom (24 April): Threatening political meddling in health regulatory authorities. My main points about this discussion document were: It is based on a false construct that too much regulatory 'red tape' was making it more difficult to ensuring that New Zealanders 'have access to timely, quality healthcare'. There was a complete absence of evidence to justify its contentions. In fact, contentions were contradicted by evidence. It is ideologically loaded and weak arguing by insinuations and with an obviously pre-determined outcome in mind. It raised several questionable scenarios to justify regulatory change that could, in fact, be resolved within the existing system (discussed further below). The biggest threat implicit in the document was political interference in the functioning of the regulatory authorities thereby weaking their responsibility to protect the public from harm. The risks for patients being diagnosed and treated by the medical profession was succinctly outlined by the Chair of the Medical Council, Dr Rachelle Love (a Christchurch head and neck surgeon) on Radio New Zealand's Nine to Noon programme (8 May): Increased political control risk. In rebutting the claims of the Ministry's discussion document, Dr Love said that what it proposed risked leading to increased political control. Instead, the real issue was the retention of doctors which was ignored by the Ministry. General practitioners don't pull their punches Steve Forbes in a paywalled article published by NZ Doctor (17 April) reported Dr Angus Chambers, general practitioner and Chair of the General Practices Owners Association (GenPro) concerns. The latter was at his forthright best. He described the consultation practice for the Health Ministry's discussion document as poorly designed and amounted to a consultation process with a preordained outcome. If implemented, it would lower both standards of care and clinical safety guidelines. Dr Chambers assessed the process as being 'completely cynical' adding, as reported by Forbes, that: There are good reasons for the different specialised regulatory authorities to oversee various health professionals, he says. But he is concerned the consultation paper is designed to get a 'quick-fix response from the public'. Further: Opening the floodgates to new, less-qualified health professionals, such as physician associates, to plug workforce gaps isn't the solution, Dr Chambers says. 'If we had enough GPs, we wouldn't need these additional professions.' General practitioner and Chair of Women in Medicine Dr Orna McGinn also questioned the credibility of the process in her LinkedIn page: The document presents a case to further politicise the health landscape via deregulation and undermining of commitments to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and thereby address inequities in health access and outcomes. We note that two government statements concerning practitioner scope and regulation were published before closure of the consultation period. This raises doubts as to the validity and legality of the process. Scenarios scam The dubious use of the above-mentioned scenarios in the Ministry of Health's discussion document to justify the 'preordained outcome' highlighted by Dr Chambers unsurprisingly attracted strong and angry responses. No wonder than NZ Nurses Organisation Chief Executive Paul Goulter called it poor quality and that it should be withdrawn. The scenarios led to the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (ASMS) formally complain to both the Public Services Commissioner and Director-General of Health over their use. Two of the scenarios claimed that podiatrists being unable to prescribe some feet medicines and approval for new occupational groups, such as physician associates, were being obstructed by the existing regulatory system. Soon after the Health Ministry released its discussion document, approval for both issues occurred. The former made sense while the latter (which was a ministerial decision) did not. But both demonstrated that working through the existing regulatory system led to the sought outcomes. ASMS meanwhile also pursued the scenarios controversy with the Health Ministry under the Official Information Act. The response from a Ministry official to ASMS, as reported in another paywalled Forbes article (6 May) was: I can confirm they are hypotheticals drawn largely from anecdotes and issues the minister has heard about. The answers to my opening questions The official's response reinforces what many suspected. The Ministry's discussion document was largely written from within Health Minister's office. A feature of his office is the absence of health system experience understanding, including about the intent of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act discussed above, is poor. Returning to my above opening questions, the Health Ministry made the comment, and it was referring to their health minister Simeon Brown. The context was a false construct that the health professions regulatory authorities were contributing to the health workforce crisis. The meaning was that political involvement was required even though this poses serious risks to the authorities prime legislative responsibility to protect the public from harm. As for the significance of its meaning it highlights the serious risks of harm to the health and wellbeing of the public (and to health professionals) when decision-making is ideologically driven and designed by those with at best minimal health system experience. No wonder, as I observed in my above-mentioned Newsroom article, the failure of the discussion document's authors was not being able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. They should have listened to Jonathan Swift. Given the ideological origin and consequential high level of predetermination they never had even a dog's chance.
NZ Herald
08-05-2025
- General
- NZ Herald
How to talk to your child about Auckland's kidnapping attempts
'We want children to have that knowledge to feel calmly confident in how to spot tricky behaviour, spot unsafe behaviour but also to have confidence that the world is mostly made up of safe people and helpers,' says clinical psychologist and mother of three Jacqui Maguire in an interview with RNZ's Nine to Noon. Here are her tips and tricks in addressing stranger danger with your kids in a safe way. Maguire began age-appropriate conversations with her kids from around the age of 4. Those conversations should always be age-appropriate, and parents should project an atmosphere of calm and authority. 'Emotions are contagious, so the manner in which my husband and I have those conversations is really important. We don't want to breed anxiety and fear into the world.' Keeping the conversations G-rated can be difficult with the adult nature of the topic. Maguire uses simple phrasing to help children spot unsafe behaviour in adults they know or don't know. 'If an adult ever asks you to keep a secret, if an adult ever shows you a picture that makes you feel uncomfortable, if an adult ever shows you someone else's body, if an adult ever asks to see your body, if an adult ever asks you to come just with them and to not tell mum or dad or other adults, if any of that happens, what do you do?' Maguire encourages kids to trust the 'yucky' feeling in their stomachs if an adult, older child or teenager is making them feel uncomfortable. In those instances, all kids have to remember is to say no, leave the person's space and go tell a safe adult. It's worth outlining what a safe adult could be. It might be someone such as another parent they know, a librarian or someone in a uniform. Maguire says this phrase can also help kids out in less dangerous situations, such as when another child is kidnapping them at preschool. One day, during a bush walk, Maguire was having a conversation about stranger danger with her kids, so she took the chance to do some role plays. Despite the bleak subject, she made it fun. She described a scenario to them of someone stopping a car next to them and saying, 'hey, look I have all these yummy lollies from the dairy do you want them?'. 'And I got them to put their hands up and say, 'no, thank you' and run away, and so they practised that.' Having such discussions in an informal setting – not like a sit-down family meeting at the dinner table – helps kids not feel like they are in trouble. 'It is just about me supporting you to be safe and be wise as you grow up.' As jarring as stories about alleged abduction attempts are, parents need to remember where the most likely danger is coming from. About 90% of child abuse instances are perpetrated by an adult known to the child, according to the Department of Corrections. Often, shame or threats from an offending adult can intimidate a child into keeping silent about a known adult's inappropriate behaviour. Pre-emptively let your child know that they will not get in trouble if they disclose somebody they feel is threatening or unsafe. ''I will always take your side. I will always believe you. Even if it was my best friend, an uncle, the neighbour, your voice will always be heard first,'' says Maguire, of what to tell kids.
Scoop
08-05-2025
- Health
- Scoop
Medical Council Fears Political Interference Over Doctor Shortage
Medical Council fears potential political interference in overhaul of health workforce regulations Retention - not red tape - to blame for doctor shortage Cultural competency ("listening to patients") vital for effective care for all patients, not just Māori Politicians should not be allowed to decide who can practise as a doctor in New Zealand in the current shake-up of health workforce regulations, the Medical Council has warned. Consultation on updating health workforce regulations has just closed. Health Minister Simeon Brown has said the current system was overly bureaucratic, and he wanted to streamline overseas recruitment while maintaining clinical standards. However, Medical Council chair Dr Rachelle Love told Nine to Noon red tape was not stopping overseas trained doctors getting registered in New Zealand. About 44 percent of doctors in New Zealand were overseas-trained, and each year, about 70 percent of new registrations were for international medical graduates, and fewer than 1 percent of international applicants were declined registration. "Where the concern is, is the retention of those doctors. So the international medical graduates who come to New Zealand, by year one, 40 percent have left. By year two, 60 percent of internationally medical trained doctors have left New Zealand." Love, a Christchurch head and neck surgeon, said the focus needed to be on why these doctors were "not thriving" in the New Zealand health system, and what support they needed to integrate and stay. "It's not about getting doctors in the front door." Room for 'streamlining' - but not at the cost of patient safety The Medical Council, which oversees clinical standards and cultural competency for doctors, was supportive of the idea of modernising the regulatory system, Love said. There was room for more collaboration and even consolidation. "We agree with many of the tenets in this document. We think it's important to prioritise patient voices, it's important to drive efficiencies and streamlining regulation is important. "The document is an opportunity to ensure the regulatory system is working, and it's aligned to the needs to patients, communities, practitioners and the wider health system." However, any overhauled workforce regulations had to ensure they matched the "risk profile" of the professions. For instance, ensuring doctors were fit to practise was "high stake". "Too far is when the public is affected. The public need to be safe in any decisions that are made. The groups also need to have independence, they can't have political independence, they need to stand aside from the politics of the day. And clinical input is really important." Tribunal must be 'politically independent' The Health Ministry's proposal includes the set up of a tribunal to allow individuals to challenge decisions made by the regulatory bodies without having to go to court. Love said the council was open to having a tribunal as it was confident in the integrity of its processes - but its fear was that this would "not be an independent body, that in fact politicians would be determining who would become a doctor in New Zealand". Doctors and other health professionals had also been taken by surprise by the signalled intention to remove proving "cultural competency" from requirements to practise in New Zealand, Love said. "In health care in general, we're a little surprised that cultural safety has become a political issue. "Cultural safety is fundamentally about listening to patients and centring them in their healthcare. And it's not a new concept. Hippocrates - 2500 years ago - talked about the importance of listening to patients, hearing their account of their symptoms, how they made sense of their own health, and then looking at factors like their family history and environmental conditions in their health." Cultural safety was integral to effective clinical care and the evidence showed it led to improved health outcomes for all patients, not just for Māori, she said.
