Less talk about a 2021 federal general election since the impact of Morrison's vaccine procurement & rollout blunders began to bite

 

The hoped for strong surge in support for the Coalition parties is not being realised, while Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison's personal support has been falling since his late April high this year.

An October 2021 federal general election is becoming less of a certainty and News Corp media is reporting that Morrison is telling colleagues that the election will not be held until 2022, with 21 May being put forward as a possible date by former senior Abbott advisor and current Liberal Party campaign director Andrew Hirst.

Newspoll 4-5 June 2021

An online survey of 1,516 respondents conducted by YouGov between Wednesday 2 and Saturday 5 June. The previous survey was conducted on 13-15 May 2021.

Primary vote:

Coalition 41% (unchanged)

Labor 36% (unchanged)

The Greens 11% (-1)

One Nation 3% (+1)

Others 9%

* 7% uncommitted excluded

Two party preferred vote:

Coalition 50% (+1)

Labor 50% (-1)

* preference flows based on recent federal and state elections.

Performance Rating:

Morrison - Satisfied 54% (-4) Dissatisfied 43% (+5) Uncommitted 3% (-1)

Albanese - Satisfied 38% (-1) Dissatisfied 47% (+1) Uncommitted 15% (unchanged)

Better Prime Minister:

Morrison 53% (-2)

Albanese 32% (+2)

Uncommitted 15% (unchanged) 

Essential Report 8 June 2021 

A weekly online survey conducted over 5 days with 1,000+ respondents on average.

• 40% of Australians say they now view Scott Morrison’s federal government less favourably than they did a year ago. A quarter (25%) say they view this more favourably than they did a year ago, and 35% say their views on the federal government have not changed.

• Compared to other Australians, Victorians are more likely to say they view Scott Morrison’s federal government less favourably than they did a year ago. Just under half (48%) of Victorians say this, followed by 45% of Western Australians, 39% of Queenslanders, 37% of South Australians and 34% of those in NSW.

• Since peaking at 70% in March, positive rating of the federal government’s handling of Covid-19 has dropped off; falling to 53% this month which is the lowest rating seen since March last year when this question was first asked.

• Positive rating of the federal government’s handling of Covid-19 has decreased in all states since last month, however it has fallen the most steeply in Victoria where it is now 42% (down 15 percentage points from 57% in May); disapproval of the federal government’s handling of Covid-19 has increased to 36% (from 22% last month) among Victorians.

• Just under half (48%) of participants believe that Scott Morrison would make a better PM than Anthony Albanese (50% last month).

Porter v ABC court case not quite over yet - there are now three parties requesting access to unredacted ABC written defence documents which Porter wants removed from court files

 

ABC News, 31 May 21:

ABC statement on Christian Porter litigation

Christian Porter has decided to discontinue his defamation action against the ABC and Louise Milligan.

All parties have agreed to not pursue the matter any further. No damages will be paid.

The only costs that the ABC will be paying are the mediation costs.

The ABC stands by the importance of the article, which reported on matters of significant public interest, and the article remains online. It has been updated with this Editor’s Note:

On 26 February 2021, the ABC published an article by Louise Milligan.That article was about a letter to the Prime Minister containing allegations against a senior cabinet minister. Although he was not named, the article was about the Attorney-General Christian Porter.

The ABC did not intend to suggest that Mr Porter had committed the criminal offences alleged. The ABC did not contend that the serious accusations could be substantiated to the applicable legal standard – criminal or civil. However, both parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted.

The ABC stands by our investigative and public interest journalism, which is always pursued in the interests of the Australian community.

The ABC stands by Louise Milligan, one of Australia’s foremost and most awarded investigative journalists, and all our journalists in their independent and brave reporting on matters about which Australians have a right to be informed.

Media contact

Sally Jackson | ABC Communications

ABC response to statements made today by Christian Porter

The 26 February 2021 article remains online without any amendments.

The ABC has not said that it regrets the article. As we have stated, the ABC stands by the importance of the article, which reported on matters of significant public interest. The Editor’s Note says: “(B)oth parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted.

The ABC has never and still does not accept that the article suggested guilt on the part of Mr Porter. The ABC did not plead a truth defence to the “guilt” meaning that Mr Porter alleged in his statement of claim.

The article was not “sensationalist”. It was an accurate and factual report on a letter that had been sent to the Prime Minister and two other senior politicians.

Communications concerning the mediation started before the commencement of the Dyer v Chrysanthou proceedings. It is simply incorrect to suggest that evidence in that case led the ABC to seek mediation.

Mediations are very common in defamation matters, and it is important that all litigant parties seek to explore potential resolution options when they can – especially so for the ABC as a model litigant.

As a public broadcaster, the ABC considered the payment of mediation costs to be a responsible course of action. The resolution reached avoids further significant legal costs.

In relation other comments and statements that have been made:

The only costs paid by the ABC, apart from its own, were mediation and related costs.

Four Corners EP Sally Neighbour did not “lie” when she tweeted that “‘No money was paid”. Ms Neighbour meant that no money was paid to Mr Porter, which is correct. Ms Neighbour quickly clarified her tweet to say that “No damages were paid”.

The ABC categorically rejects the claim that Louise Milligan “coached” Jo Dyer. The suggestion is not only an insult to Ms Milligan but also to Ms Dyer’s intelligence and integrity.

Despite the assertion in Mr Porter’s filed reply, Ms Milligan did not attempt to speak to Kate before her death. That suggestion is completely untrue.

The ABC has previously published this statement on the Christian Porter litigation:

ABC statement on Christian Porter litigation

Media contact

Sally Jackson | ABC Communications

The Guardian, 2 June 2021:

The ABC rejected an offer from Christian Porter to settle his defamation case weeks before the minister agreed to enter mediation, Guardian Australia can reveal.

The former attorney general has claimed a victory in the high-profile case, but it is understood he originally made an offer for a relatively modest financial settlement without an apology or a retraction of the article.

The offer was rejected by the broadcaster in early May and the two parties entered mediation on Friday 28 May, reaching an agreement on Monday.

It comes as a friend of the woman who made an historical rape allegation against Porter – an allegation he strenuously denies – separately sent the former attorney general a legal concerns notice on Tuesday over comments he made during a press conference which she says “impugned my honesty and integrity”.

Jo Dyer – who brought the case that saw Porter’s star barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC restrained from acting in his now-defunct defamation bid against the ABC – released a statement on Tuesday saying she had sent a legal notice to Porter after the fiery press conference he held after dropping his case against the public broadcaster.

The decision by Porter to drop the case has not ended hostilities between the parties, with a series of back-and-forth jabs over the deal.

Despite the terms of the agreement being confidential, comments by both Porter and the ABC journalist Louise Milligan have raised significant questions about the timing and circumstances of the out-of-court deal.

At his press conference, Porter said the ABC had approached his lawyers “last Friday” for “an urgent mediation”.

“And we agreed, we consented to go to that mediation. That mediation was requested by the ABC,” he said.

That timeline was disputed on Twitter by Milligan, who wrote that it was Porter who had “proposed a settlement first”.

“If he wants to dispute that, happy to refresh his memory and release the terms he offered,” she wrote……

Read the full article here.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 June 2021:

The Federal Court will hear a fight over media access to the ABC’s written defence to Christian Porter’s defamation claim, as lawyers for the federal Liberal minister say 27 pages of the document should be removed from the court file…..

The Federal Court heard on Tuesday that the ABC and Mr Porter had agreed as part of mediation talks to seek a court order that 27 pages of the ABC’s 37-page defence to his claim “be permanently removed from the court file”.

The pages in question have been redacted in the publicly-available version of the defence.

The parties also agreed the proceedings would be discontinued with no order as to legal costs. However, no formal notice of discontinuance had been filed on Tuesday, meaning the case is not officially over.

A temporary non-publication order over the 27 pages was made by Justice Jayne Jagot in May, pending a pre-trial application by Mr Porter to strike out those parts of the defence and remove them from the court file.

His lawyers were seeking to rely on Federal Court rules dealing with “scandalous” and “vexatious” material, or material that is “otherwise an abuse of the process”. That application fell away when Mr Porter dropped the case.

Nine Entertainment Co, the publisher of this masthead, and News Corp have briefed a barrister, Dauid Sibtain, to fight the non-publication order and ultimately to access the unredacted defence.

At a hearing in Sydney on Tuesday, Justice Jagot questioned whether the parties could simply agree now for documents to be removed from the court file.

“It doesn’t then become a matter for you about what is to be disclosed or not disclosed,” she told the parties.

Victorian barrister Renee Enbom QC, acting for the ABC, said it was “Mr Porter’s application for an interim suppression order”.

“My clients have done what they were required to do and consent to [an order removing sections of the defence from the court file] ... to the extent that they can consent, but they don’t otherwise wish to be heard or seek to be heard,” she said.

Sydney barrister Barry Dean, acting for Mr Porter, said the agreement to remove the material from the court file was part of a settlement between the parties.

“That’s not the point,” Justice Jagot replied. “There has to be a reason for removal of a document. It’s not just done because a party wants to do it.”

Mr Dean submitted that “orders are made all the time by the consent of the parties”.

“Sure, but not for removal of documents,” Justice Jagot said, adding there was a “fundamental issue” about the integrity of the court file.

Lawyers for Nine, News Corp and Mr Porter will return to court on July 9.

Kangaroo Court of Australia, 5 June 2021:

The Christian Porter v ABC defamation case is far from over with a hearing set down for the 9th of July after the judge refused to rubber-stamp Porter’s attempt to have material removed from the court file and suppressed on a permanent basis. I was also ordered by the court to file and serve all the Attorney-Generals a s78B Notice of a Constitutional matter because I said that I would argue that any tampering with the court file and suppression orders would infringe on the implied freedom of political communication. A copy of the Notice of a Constitutional matter that I filed and served is below……

BACKGROUND

Federal Court of Australia, Christian Porter v ABC Online File at

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/porter-v-abc

Morrison Coalition Government to reduce or remove Medicare rebates on 900 orthopaedic, heart and general surgery procedures from 1 July 2021

 

Australian Medical Association (AMA) Media Centre, 6 June 2021:

Government in danger of history repeating with Medicare rebate changes

Just weeks before the biggest changes to Medicare in decades, the Federal Government and the private health sector are grappling with the huge number of changes that have only just been released, leading to the potential for chaos for patients.

More than 900 Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items for rebates for private surgery are set to change on 1 July as part of the MBS Review of all 5,700 Medicare rebates.

The latest changes will affect rebates for orthopaedic surgery, general surgery and heart surgery.

“The AMA is concerned that the private healthcare sector – including health funds, hospitals, doctors and patients – will not be ready for the 1 July changes due to poor implementation by the Government,” AMA President, Dr Omar Khorshid, said today.

“Less than one month out from the implementation of these changes, and we still do not have all the information we need to assess and change over our schedules and payment processes to reflect the changes.

“We had enough problems in November 2018 when the first tranche of MBS Review changes resulted in private health insurers, through no fault of their own, not having their schedules updated in time.

“That meant that no-gap arrangements were not possible or were significantly delayed leading to uncertainty for doctor and patient alike.

“Patients were left out of pocket, spinal surgeries were delayed, and doctors couldn’t provide patients with informed financial consent about potential gap fees.

“Those changes involved replacing 70 spinal surgery items with 60 new items.

“The 1 July changes involve expected changes to 594 orthopaedic surgery items, 150 general surgery items, and 188 cardiac surgery items.

“After the spinal surgery debacle, the AMA and the private health sector told the Department of Health that six months’ lead time is needed ahead of MBS changes.

“More than two years later, we are facing the same problems, but with more than ten-fold the volume and complexity.

“This will put significant financial and operational risk on health insurers and private hospitals, and leaves doctors and patients scrambling and confused about what and how to bill against Medicare and private health insurance policies come 1 July. We simply don’t know what the rebates from funds will be, as they haven’t had the time to prepare and release them in advance – including for surgeries already booked for next month.

“The AMA and other medical groups have worked in good faith with the Government and the MBS Review Taskforce since 2015 to ensure that Medicare provides value to patients and taxpayers, and that it continues to be sustainable.

“We have repeatedly reached out to Government and the Department of Health to communicate the needs of the sector to ensure a smooth transition of the MBS changes.

“However, giving the sector just weeks instead of months to change over its entire system to support almost 1000 changes leaves the health system and patients at risk.

"The Government's reminder to doctors to consider patients' circumstances when charging fees misses the point. At the moment there's no way for doctors to know if they are charging a gap due to the chaos caused by the Department's poor implementation."

“The AMA is calling on the Government to urgently commit to changing the process going forward to avoid past problems, and ensure that this massive change to MBS rebates occurs without disruption to patient care.

“We are also calling on the Government and private health insurers to safeguard patient private health insurance rebates, to ensure that they are not worse off financially, for undergoing orthopaedic, general or cardiac surgery after 1 July due to implementation issues with the MBS.”

ENDS

The Advertiser, 6 June 2021:

Patients could find themselves more than $10,000 out of pocket for common surgeries, as radical changes to the Medicare rebate scheme are introduced.

More than 900 procedures – including hip, shoulder, hand, cardiac and other surgeries – will be affected in the overhaul next month, with doctors warning it will create “total chaos”.

In some areas, such as shoulder surgery, one in four of the existing items have disappeared, so there will be no Medicare or health fund rebate – patients will have to either pay the full cost or do without the surgery.

Some tendon procedures for elbow surgeries have also been wiped and, with no Medicare or health fund rebate, could cost patients $7000 to $10,000. As well, fee cuts for hip arthroplasty could deliver a $1200 gap.

Young people and those playing sport are among the worst affected. They are faced with having to fully fund their own microsurgery for an extremely common hip condition. Femoro-acetabular impingement syndrome – where extra bone grows along the hip joint causing an irregular shape and painful rubbing – is no longer allowed as a diagnosis.

The Australian Medical Association said we were now the only medically advanced country not to recognise this diagnosis or treatment through a hip arthroscopy….

The changes are the result of the federal government’s long-running Medicare Benefits Review that was meant to modernise the 38-year-old system.

Doctors said they would continue to charge the fees they do now but many Medicare rebates will go down or disappear, increasing the gap fees patients pay. Health funds have not yet updated their rebate systems and doctors are currently unable to give patients proper informed financial consent about any out-of-pocket fees for surgery they are booking for after July 1.

[my yellow highlighting]

NOTE:

According to the Federal Government Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, as at June 2018 there were 693 public hospitals and 657 private hospitals in Australia supplying 3.9 beds per 1,000 head of population. Depending on urgency level pre-COVID-19 optimum waiting times for surgery at public hospitals ranged from up to est. 30 days to 365 days between diagnosis and surgery. While pre-COVID-19 private hospital waiting times were generally days to weeks. Given the projected additional expense of certain surgeries in private hospitals after 1 July this year, it would take only a relatively small drift of patients opting to forego private hospital admission in favour of public hospital admission to make public waiting times go through the roof.

Former Maclean Shire mayor, former Clarence Valley mayor and current Armidale Regional Council Mayor Ian Tiley is provisionally listed as a candidate at the September 2021 Clarence Valley local government election

 

The Daily Telegraph/The DailyExaminer, 2 June 2021:

Dr Ian Tiley has revealed there is a strong chance he will run for a spot on Clarence Valley Council after his name was spotted on a Local Government Register of Candidates.

The registration of a candidate is a separate process to nomination and was brought in to help prospective candidates better understand the responsibilities of being a local government representative.

While Mr Tiley, who is currently the Mayor of Armidale Regional Council, was not a definite for nomination he said “the probability is that I will run”.

“I love local government and I have been involved continuously since 1964. I don’t feel inclined to retire just yet,” he said.

In 2016 Mr Tiley was appointed administrator of the newly formed Armidale Regional Council (ARC) and was elected to its first council in 2017.

Following political turmoil and the short term appointment of another administrator to ARC in 2020, Mr Tiley was elected Mayor.

Mr Tiley has had a 50-year career in local government, moving from senior management to being an elected representative in 1991, serving on a number of councils.

He is the Deputy Director of the Centre for Local Government at the University of New England and served on the NSW government Local Government Acts Taskforce.

Eager to get back to his home in Maclean on a more permanent basis, Mr Tiley said it’s “time to return to paradise”.

“Local government has been my work and passion. You are in a position to make a difference to the lives of everyday people,” he said.

“I don’t feel ready to put the feet up yet.”

Mr. Tiley is not the only candidate who has provisionally entered his name on the Local Government Register of Candidates for the Saturday 4 September 2021 election in the Clarence Valley.

So has Stephen Pickering, Phillip Belletty, Tara Matteson, Allison Waites, and Jeffrey Smith - all of whom like Ian Tiley appear at this stage to be standing as Independents. A seventh candidate, Donald Scott, has listed the National Party of Australia as his formal political party affiliation. 

Given that is is expected that at least seven of the nine sitting Clarence Valley councillors will seek re-election in September and, given that candidate nominations do not close until 4 August 2021, then a rather long ballot paper may be developing.

Meme of the Week

via @rationalbitch

 

Cartoon of the Week

 

IMAGE: laptrinhx.com

Some lessons never get learnt by NSW local government and this is but one recent example

 

IMAGE: Google Earth 2008

In what seems an appropriate response to a proposed retrospective development consent the NSW Office of Local Government and NSW Ombudsman have commenced a preliminary investigation into building works undertaken at 19 Gumnut Road, Yamba, a waterside residential property of approx. 651.70 sq metres, which according to Clarence Valley flood mapping is at risk of a degree of inundation even in a 1 in 5 year flood event and in a 1 in 100 year event water likely reach the top floor of the house.

A development application DA 2019/0439 was lodged on 14 August 2019, however subsequent construction did not follow the structural plans to which Clarence Valley Council had granted consent on 2 December 2019 apparently by delegated authority.

After a site inspection in February 2021 when build inconsistencies could not be ignored by council officers, the owners of 19 Gumnut Road were obliged to lodge DA2021/0153 and MOD2021/0016.

These documents show:

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CARPORT AND AWNING ATTACHED TO EXISTING DWELLING

2 CONSTRUCTION OF [detached] RUMPUS ROOM AT REAR OF LOT

3 CONSTRUCTION OF DECK AT REAR OF LOT

4 NEW FENCE ALONG WESTERN BOUNDARY

* NOTE: POOL AND SURROUND TO BE APPROVED AS SEPARATE D.A

Additionally the documents described a retractable privacy screen and awning, rainwater tank and floating pontoon. The rainwater tank and retractable awning were constructed without Council approval and do not meet the development standards for exempt development (i.e. development that does not require Council approval) listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. The retractable privacy screen has not been constructed or installed and the floating pontoon has been removed from the application. Accordingly, this application only seeks approval for: 

• Proposed retractable privacy screen 

• Existing retractable awning (as-built) 

• Existing rainwater tank (as-built)

The 40 year-old house and additional structures now appear intended to cover around 85-90 per cent of the lot.

Apparently eager to oblige these particular local business owners, council staff formally recommended to Council in the Chamber that retrospective consent be given as well as consent for certain proposed construction and, predictably the 'all-development-is- good-but-over-development-is-better' brigade holding a majority on Clarence Valley Council also agreed to oblige the owners on 25 May 2021. 

Quite frankly, the article below does not do full justice to the level of non-compliance shown in photographs taken in 2020 and supplied to Clarence Valley Council by local residents. Nor is the mention it contains of the rumpus room/studio adequate to describe the aesthetically bereft, freestanding structure that was actually built.

Clarence Valley Independent, 2 June 2021:

Councillors were split four to three at the May 25 Clarence Valley Council (CVC) meeting, when they approved a raft of existing building works at a Gumnut Road property in Yamba, however, three councillors lodged a rescission motion after the meeting.

Nearby residents lodged objections (a total of nine submissions and a petition signed by 40 people) to the “as-built inconsistencies with the approved” development applications (DA) and other unapproved works, which council’s planning staff described as “minor” or “very minor”.

Some of the modifications and works approved were non-compliant with CVC’s development control plan (DCP).

Objectors have raised issues with Ombudsman NSW, regarding how CVC has managed processing the DAs and CVC’s alleged indifference to unapproved building works.

Ombudsman NSW is currently making “preliminary enquiries” into the matter.

Councillors Debrah Novak, Karen Toms and Greg Clancy lodged the rescission motion, which outlined six reasons:

Council did not undertake progress inspections during construction works for both DA 2019/0439 (now MOD 2021/0016) and DA 2021/0153);

Council has varied the residential DCP floodplain management controls in relation to the required floor level of 2.9m Australian height datum (AHD) for the studio, consequently, CVC’s DCP would need to be updated as this has set a precedent;

The applicant has not provided a survey completed by a registered surveyor as required … when the DA was lodged or prior to commencement of construction;

The applicant has not provided a valid structural engineer certification for the whole build of the studio … occupation is prohibited without a valid structural engineer’s certification;

No valid structural engineer’s certification has been submitted for the existing retaining wall, which is now the foundation for the large extended deck; and,

The applicant has enclosed a deck without obtaining prior approval from council. [my yellow highlighting]

Acting general manager Laura Black said the rescission motion would be tabled at the June 2021 CVC meeting; however, she said the rescission motion “bears no relation to the ombudsman’s enquiry, at the moment”.

“As we [CVC] understand it, the ombudsman has received a complaint from a ratepayer … and the [ombudsman has] made an enquiry [regarding] our communication with that ratepayer,” Ms Black said.

“We are unaware of the nature of the complaint and we’ve provided a response to the ombudsmen, including all of our correspondence with that particular ratepayer.

“This rescission motion, though, is purely a rescission motion from three councillors, in accordance with the code of meeting practice, and it puts on the table that … the motion that we’ve resolved in relation to the DA modification [could] be rescinded….

“At this stage, the ombudsman is just undertaking preliminary enquires; we don’t know the nature of the complaint, but the ombudsman’s office actually doesn’t have any power to stop council from making a decision.

“We have been advised [Ombudsman NSW] has no intention of interfering in council’s decision making – so the rescission motion itself is not related to the ombudsman.”

Councillors Richie Williamson and Karen Toms were absent.