Sunday 8 June 2014

Pensioner concessions stay in New South Wales and Queensland



Pensioners will be spared cuts to concessions on basic living expenses, with NSW Treasurer Andrew Constance to announce on Sunday that the Baird government will fund a $107 million shortfall left by the federal budget.
The move to cushion the blow of the Abbott government's cuts follows angry scenes in Queensland after Premier Campbell Newman decided to pass on $50 million in Commonwealth cuts to pensioners in the Queensland budget. Within 48 hours, as irate pensioners flooded talkback radio, Mr Newman had reversed his decision.
Mr Constance said: "We understand the cost of living pressures seniors face and are determined to ensure they are not adversely affected by the federal government's harsh cuts … We are not in the business of creating bill shock, where, in just a few weeks' time, people would have been left out of pocket courtesy of Canberra."
The NSW budget will commit an extra $107 million to maintain pensioner and seniors' concessions. These include discounted vehicle registration, $2.50 travel across the train, ferry and bus network, a $250 discount on council rates to pension card holders, a $235 rebate on electricity bills and an exemption from Sydney Water service charges of $31 a quarter…..

It appears that in New South Wales pensioner concessions will remain for the life of the current state budget. Hopefully, funds to cover these concessions in future years will also be found.

As in remote, rural and regional areas in particular, bus/train travel and car registration concessions can mean the difference between receiving adequate medical care for chronic or potentially life threatening disease/illness or having to go without appropriate treatment all together because access to regular specialist medical care is unachievable.

What all members of the Abbott Government (without whose support the draconian 2014-15 Federal Budget would not exist) appear to have forgotten is facts such as these from the National Rural Health Alliance:

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) reports that cancer is responsible for Australia’s largest disease burden, with more than 108,000 new cases and more than 39,000 cancer deaths in 2007.
About one-third of the people affected by cancer live in regional and rural areas. For them, the burden of cancer is disproportionately heavy.
People living with cancer in regional and rural areas have poorer survival rates than those living in major cities, and the further from a major city patients with cancer live, the more likely they are to die within five years of diagnosis.
A study by Jong et al published in the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) in 2004 found that people with cancer in remote areas of NSW were 35 per cent more likely to die within five years of diagnosis than patients in metropolitan areas.
For prostate and cervical cancers, patients in remote NSW were up to three times more likely to die within five years of diagnosis than those living in more accessible areas….
For most people a cancer diagnosis causes significant physical and emotional distress, loss of income and substantial expense.
Because of the complexity of cancer treatment and the absence of specialist services, most rural people with cancer need to travel to major centres for at least some of their care.
This adds to the financial and personal burden for patients and their families….

As well as in this article by ABC News on 4 November 2013:

It seems little progress has been made over the past two decades in bridging the gap between rural and city cancer patients when it comes to treatment.
A study in the Medical Journal of Australia has found cancer patients in rural and remote communities continue to be at increased risk of death from the disease compared to their city counterparts.
The paper looked at cancer deaths from 2001 to 2010.
It found there was no improvement in the rates of regional and remote patients dying of cancer. In fact, for women, the disparity actually increased.
Dr Michael Coorey, from the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, says one of the reasons death rates have not improved is because of the lack of investments in policy on how to organise cancer services so they provide the most benefit to patients.
"Enough is already known about the causes of the regional and remote access in deaths to start evaluating possible solutions," he said.
Possible solutions could include more support for regional and remote patients to travel to metropolitan centres, and more funding for associated accommodation….

Abbott and Pyne's "brave", "decent", "revolutionary" woman comes a cropper after allegedly spending over $1 million of HSU union members' funds



http://youtu.be/-22egcUFTJo



A Fairfax Media investigation has also obtained a leaked NSW police statement that alleges that Ms Jackson knew of serious corruption claims involving Health Services Union bosses Michael Williamson and Craig Thomson for more than a decade before she reported the pair to police in 2011.
The witness, Sydney businesswoman Carron Gilleland, said in her signed police statement that she asked for Ms Jackson's help in 1999 after discovering the possible ''illicit'' use of funds by the pair.
The leaked police statement and other documents also suggest that a private company directed by Ms Jackson and her then husband Jeff Jackson was used both as a secret slush fund and a vehicle for charging the union for ''industrial consulting'' fees in the late 1990s.

Daily Motion mocks Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Last Week Tonight video

Saturday 7 June 2014

Quote of the Week


If no-one in the entire process of preparing the prime minister’s weekly address to the nation could spot the problem with the politicisation and crass commercialisation of a D-Day Commmoration — including the prime minister himself — then we’ve got a serious problem here.
Yes, part of PMO’s job is the ensure a successful re-election, but that’s not it’s only job. If the place is staffed primarily, or perhaps even solely, by the grunt soldiers of the daily political battlefield, and if the PM is so tone-deaf that he can’t figure out what sort of communication is needed when, then who’s being the leader?
Who’s creating the vision for Australia’s future? A future beyond the end of tomorrow night’s TV news, I mean. Who’s creating consensus out of different viewpoints, and uniting us in effort to achieve that vision? Anyone? I suspect not. [Stilgherrian.com 2 June 2014]

One Voter's Verdict: Hang them ALL by the neck until dead


The Daily Examiner 27 May 2014:
Hanging judge
Bob Katter reckons Joe Hockey's theft of health funding could cause closure of rural hospitals. Yes, it could.
But what it should cause is for the Australian people to storm parliament house in Canberra, drag every Liberal traitor out by the scruff of the neck, and hang them by the neck till they're dead.
When that's done, seeing as how they're there, they should then drag out all the Labour filth and hang them too!
That'll save another trip to hang them later. More economical to fix the problem all in one go.
Frank Brown
Richmond, Qld

Friday 6 June 2014

Error of judgement leaves Clarence Valley Council's reputation in the wind


It has been known for some weeks now that there was a document, filed as part of its 2013 annual Code of Conduct Complaints Report, being displayed on Clarence Valley Council’s own website which appeared to suggest that an unnamed councillor had been found to have breached council’s Code of Conduct and that investigating this alleged breach had cost council $14,900.

This same council document is also permanently itemised by Google’s search engine, linked to on local social media and displayed on Scribd.

Even the most cursory of investigations quickly established a link between it and an article in The Daily Examiner on 18 October 2013 titled Review of conflict claim cost $14,900.

Cr. Andrew Baker currently has a motion before Clarence Valley Council’s Governance & Corporate Committee, which in part seeks an apology from the most senior council officer for allowing publication of incorrect information concerning the outcome of a code of conduct complaint.

An excerpt from Item 15.011/14, in Clarence Valley Council’s Governance & Corporate Committee business paper of 10 June 2014 at Page 56, clearly demonstrates the attitude being taken by management to its own error of judgement in allowing publication:

COMMENTS FROM GENERAL MANAGER

1. The report to Council’s Governance and Corporate Committee on 12 November 2013, item 14.167/13 titled Code of Conduct Complaints Report 2012/13, correctly summarises the complaints and dealings that have occurred in relation to Council’s Code of Conduct for the period.

2. The statistical document for submission to the Office of Local Government however had some clerical errors in it.

3. The statistical return is a numerical summary only and does not mention any names or refer to any specific matter or investigation.

4. The statistical document was forwarded as required to the Office of Local Government.

5. The Office of Local Government has not yet published the collective statistics for NSW.

6. The Office of Local Government has been advised of the errors and an amended statistical return has been provided.

7. Council has been advised by the Office of Local Government that the correct statistical information has been now included in their records.

8. The Office of Local Government in the near future is expected to publish the collective statistics for Code of Conduct complaints which will include the correct statistics for Clarence Valley Council.

9. A search of local media has failed to identify where this issue has been published or reported.

10. I consider that this matter is now resolved.

It is also important for Councillors to be aware of their responsibility under Part 8 of the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). Part 8 relates to the importance of preserving the integrity of the Code.
Clause 8.1 of the Code expressly states:

You must not conduct yourself in a manner that is likely to undermine confidence in the integrity of this code or its administration.

In effect, this means that if a Councillor believes a breach of the code may have occurred, they have an obligation to make a formal complaint so the matter can be assessed and administered according to the code’s guidelines. Any different action has the potential to deny the code’s fundamental principles of fairness and equity, and could be in breach of Part 8.

Point (2) of the proposed motion includes the wording “the most senior Council officer responsible for the errors in reporting, described in part 1 of this motion, be invited to include an apology to Councillors….”. A motion seeking an apology could be viewed as an attempt to impose a penalty against an officer for an alleged but unproven wrongdoing. In the absence of proper due process, such a motion would be denial of natural justice as well as procedural fairness and equity, as detailed in Part 3 of the Code. As such a Council resolution containing such a statement without correct process in accordance with the Code being afforded may give rise to a complaint against those voting for the motion for failing in their obligations in accordance with Part 8.

Scott Greensill
GENERAL MANAGER



It could also still be found on the Google search engine index:


As well as remaining on social media here and here as a par by this blog.

Despite these numerous published mentions, Clarence Valley Council’s General Manager appears to think that informing the Division of Local Government that it needed to emend its copy of the document is the only action required.

He considers “that this matter is now resolved”.

So it seems that this document published separately from the 16 October 2012 Resolution 13.180/12 (therefore allowing no context and suggestive of wrong doing on the part of an unnamed councillor) is to remain permanently uncorrected as part of council’s own electronic records displayed online and, remain easily available on the Internet to anyone around the world to potentially misinterpret.

What a strange and unsatisfactory way to resolve this matter. 

At the very least the General Manger should emend council’s own records and then seek the advice of council’s website administrator as to how to permanently remove all traces of the offending document from the Internet.

As Clarence Valley Council’s most senior officer he should also give serious consideration to apologising for a situation created on his watch.