Hospital mortality rates - not always good news for those living in rural and regional NSW

Bureau of Health Information (December 2013), 30-day mortality following hospitalisation, five clinical conditions, NSW, July 2009 – June 2012: Acute myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, pneumonia and hip fracture surgery:

Acute myocardial infarction - There were 91 hospitals (90%) with mortality no different to expected. Three hospitals (Royal Prince Alfred, Royal North Shore, Prince of Wales), had lower than expected mortality and seven hospitals (Milton and Ulladulla, Cessnock, Bowral, Tamworth, Hornsby, St George, and one not reportable*) had higher than expected mortality.

For ischaemic stroke - There were 57 hospitals (80%) with mortality no different from expected. Four hospitals (Concord, Prince of Wales, Belmont, and Manly) had lower than expected mortality and ten hospitals (Moruya, Tamworth, Dubbo, Lismore, Nepean, Coffs Harbour, Westmead, Royal Prince Alfred, John Hunter, and one not reportable*) had higher than expected mortality.

Haemorrhagic stroke - There were 82 hospitals (94%) within the expected range of results. Two hospitals (Fairfield, and one not reportable*) had lower than expected mortality and three hospitals (Port Macquarie, John Hunter, and one not reportable*) had higher than expected mortality.

Pneumonia - There were 126 hospitals (89%) within the expected range. Seven hospitals (Canterbury, John Hunter, Bankstown, St Vincent’s, Maitland, Shellharbour, one not reportable) had lower than expected mortality and nine hospitals (Inverell, Manning, Tamworth, Blacktown, Wyong and four not reportable*) had higher than expected mortality.

Hip fracture surgery - Results for 33 hospitals (87%) were within the expected range of mortality. One hospital (St Vincent’s) had lower than expected mortality and four hospitals (Tamworth, Orange, Gosford, and Coffs Harbour) had higher than expected mortality.

Click on images to enlarge

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK: Keeping copper wire in ground on coastal flood plains

The Abbott Government intends that the last section of the National Broadband Network which enters an Internet users premises will remain the original copper wire installed by Telstra – unless the user is rich enough to pay for the laying of optic fibre between the street node box and their residence/business.

Giving evidence before the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network last week, NBN Chairman and Acting CEO Dr Ziggy Switkowski on the subject of fault levels on Telstra’s copper wire-based telecommunications system:

I am certainly familiar with the issue in the sense that long periods of drought tend to be associated with lower fault levels than seasons that are very, very wet. The difference might be two or three per cent out of a 10 per cent to 15 per cent base. I am just guessing here or trying to remember.......

Northern Rivers communities will be alarmed at this statement, given the number of floods and heavy rain periods the region experiences. 

Because what Dr. Switkowski statement indicates is that there is little hope that the Abbott broadband scheme will see any improvement in the rate of server dropouts or in upload/download speeds for Internet users on the NSW North Coast.

Abbott Government debt

On 4 December 2013 Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey announced that; The Government has today agreed to the Australian Greens’ proposal to repeal the statutory debt limit and enhance transparency around government debt reporting. 

On 4 December Abbott Government borrowings were averaging in excess of $203 million a day.

Now the fiscal brakes have been removed from Hockey's little red treasury wagon, I wonder how much further into debt he will drive the Commonwealth.

The Abbott 'Best Possible Christmas Present' That Isn't

http://youtu.be/3tiEUgKMSo4

best possible Christmas present for the Australian people

[Tony Abbott, December 2013]

Even if the Australian Senate voted to repeal the former Labor Government’s Clean Energy legislation before it goes into recess at the end of the 12 December 2013 sitting day, power bills will probably not see any decrease before late-2014 at the earliest as the Abbot Government does not intend to abolish the carbon price levy until 1 June that year.

By the Abbott Government’s own admission the carbon price levy only adds $9 to every $100 dollars of the average household’s energy bills so each household would be 'saving' a monumental $1.50 a day after May next year. By comparison state government-owned network poles and wires charges add $51 to every $100 dollars of the average bill and that part of the bill is not going away in the foreseeable future.

In addition, the Abbott Government has no date set to reduce the renewable energy tariff component of the power bill which also adds to the cost of power to the home or business, nor is it planning to abolish the most lucrative arm of the so-called ‘carbon tax’ – the levy paid by the off-shore oil and gas industry.

The Abbott Government also has no power to set electricity or gas retail prices. That is the purview of states and territories regulators and, in part, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER). In NSW the state regulator is the Independent Pricing And Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) and its current prices are set until June 2014.

As the morning of 1 July 2014 dawns across the NSW Northern Rivers, can you be certain that your power bill will fall sometime in the next two years or will you find that it continues to rise and rise?

Either way, Santa Abbott is not reducing your power bill this Christmas.

Did Abbott & Pyne break the 10 Day Rule?

The Financial Review reported on 30 October 2013:

Tony Abbott has instructed his ministers to complete their submissions to ­cabinet 10 days before they are scheduled for discussion as he seeks to assure business and others that the days of ad hoc policymaking are over.

In an interview with The Australian Financial Review, the Prime Minister said he had re-instituted the “10-day rule” to ensure that by the time a ­decision was announced, it had been thoroughly workshopped by the department and other relevant ministers, minimising the potential for poor policy and unintended consequences.

“One of the object lessons of the last six years has been the peril that ­government created for itself, and the chaos that it risked creating for our country, when ordinary decision-making processes are abandoned and when the tried and tested process of cabinet and government are neglected in favour of spur of the moment opportunism,” he said.

Mr Abbott said the rule would be applied in every situation except in cases of national emergency when a quick decision was needed....

Well that seems clear cut.

So how does the quickly shifting federal policy on education funding stack up against this need to have decisions thoroughly workshopped by the department and other relevant ministers before they are announced?

There was barely a day between some of the foreshadowed or announced policy back flips by Prime Minister Abbott and Education Minister Pyne over the last eight or nine days.

The Abbott Government does not present as mature and stable - it appears inadequate and in panic mode.

A new look for the Member for Cowper

Luke Hartsuyker MP for Cowper as he appears on the Australian Parliament's website.

The images below show the new, ever-so-cool MP for Cowper when he spoke in the House of Representatives on Tuesday 3rd December. Who is the MP's new hair dresser?

General Manager Scott Greensill in court on behalf of Clarence Valley Council

Not for the first time in his local government career Clarence Valley General Manager Scott Greensill is attending court to give evidence. [1] 

As General Manager he was responsible for the dismissal from employment of a council employee of some years standing. This dismissal is being contested.

  

The Daily Examiner 3rd Dec 2013 1:45 PM:

CLARENCE Valley Council staff are at the Murwillumbah Court today for the NSW Industrial Commission hearing of an unfair dismissal case.

The case has been brought by former council ranger Wayne Smith.

In the courthouse several of Mr Smith's friends and former colleagues have attended to give him support.

The council staff team led by GM Scott Greensill, is at the court.

Our reporter Tim Howard is at the hearing and said that lawyers from both sides are locked in talks with no hint of when the matter might go back into the hearing.

Updates as we get them.

Mr. Greensill, by his own admission in 2011 came to a council with a stable base - something which may not always be able to be said of Clarence Valley Council today.

[1]  Nichols v Singleton Council (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1517 (9 December 2011) [100%]
(From Supreme Court of New South Wales; 9 December 2011; 212 KB)     

Nichols v Singleton Council [2011] NSWSC 946 (25 August 2011) [100%]
(From Supreme Court of New South Wales; 25 August 2011; 89 KB)     

Nichols v Singleton Council (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 367 (19 April 2012) [50%]
(From Supreme Court of New South Wales; 19 April 2012; 51 KB)     

UPDATES

Later the same day The Daily Examiner reported that: THE unfair dismissal hearing between council ranger Wayne Smith and Clarence Valley Council has been adjourned.
The IRC deputy president Harrison has told the parties to reach an agreement among themselves.
He has vacated tomorrow's hearing date, set down for Byron Bay.
If a settlement cannot be reached the matter will come back before him on a date to be fixed.
Lawyers from sides met through the morning and told the hearing after lunch they were close to a resolution.
Council general manager Scott Greensill would not comment on today's proceedings. 

On 4 December The Daily Examiner went on to report: THE Clarence Valley Council has reached an agreement in an unfair dismissal case brought forward by council ranger Wayne Smith who was dismissed from his job more than a year ago.

The NSW Industrial Commission was set down for Murwillumbah Court yesterday but was adjourned after only a minute and negotiations behind closed doors meant the matter was resolved outside the court.

With the details of the agreement confidential, Mr Smith was advised to not comment on the case as it could endanger the agreement.

His barrister, Michael McCall, said under this agreement he could not say if Mr Smith would return to his job as head ranger....

Clarence Valley Council is now a local laughing stock. 

How it expects to keep residents and ratepayers from finding out whether Mr. Smith has been re-employed or not is beyond my comprehension when it would only take a phone call to Council (with an enquiry only rangers could answer) to elicit this information.

It will always be a mystery to many as to why Council appears to believe that a confidentiality clause would stop both councillors and ratepayers from realising that an out of court settlement (reached on the first day of the court case) indicates by default that Council had been in the wrong with regard to the dismissal.

Further Updates

The Daily Examiner on 5 December 2013 at Page 7:

WHAT is the point of a non-disclosure agreement that withholds information that anyone can find out by keeping their eyes and ears open?

This isn't a rhetorical question.

I'd really would like to know.

On Tuesday there was a NSW Industrial Relations Commission hearing into whether the dismissal of Clarence Valley Council head ranger Wayne Smith was unfair.

It concluded on Murwillum-bah Court House steps with both parties agreeing to a conclusion and signing a deed of non-disclosure of information.

This included not revealing whether the ranger got his job back or not.

It was not because Mr Smith and his legal team did not want the story to get out, they arrived at court with every expectation the case would go ahead and all would be revealed.

However there is a bigger question to be asked about non-disclosure agreements.

Is it fair for an individual or an organisation to call for a non-disclosure agreement when behaviour may need scrutiny?

Non-disclosure is valid, for example, to protect intellectual property, such as when an employee leaves a company.

But how much ratepayers' money was spent on investigations and legal fees without the public being able to judge its validity and effectiveness?

The short answer is that ratepayers and reporters can't tell because none of the information was tested in a hearing and it is unfair to publish information that we can't take reasonable steps to clarify.

But stopping the poor bloke from being able to tell the world whether he had his job back or not was definitely one step too far.