Showing posts with label Brendan Nelson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brendan Nelson. Show all posts

Tuesday 16 March 2010

Is this an example of Rudd's future local health service delivery? GP Super Clinic causing stress in Grafton


No-one would deny that the 2007 Federal Labor general practice super clinic election promise was very welcome in the Clarence Valley. However, it has been a rather strange affair as reflected in The Daily Examiner letters to the editor columns over recent months, in light of the fact that this proposed clinic is a taxpayer-funded project though a $5 million federal capital grant for land purchase, building design, construction and equipment purchase.

One has to wonder why Rudd, Roxon and Dept of Health & Aging are allowing a private company Ochre Health (30 percent-owned by global investment bank Lazard through Lazard Carnegie & Wylie which in turn is connected with former Labor PM Keating) to set the agenda in this rather highhanded manner. After all, this clinic is supposed to provide another free health service as an adjunct to the public health/hospital system.

Even if it is apparently a joint venture agreement between Ochre and the Commonwealth, the company appears to outlay next to nothing and it will obviously be well-paid for any ongoing state-level service delivery if past contracts of over $1 million per annum are any indication and, the contracts Ochre usually has with its own doctors are based in part on expectations of the patient volume they attract with practitioners turning over to the company 40% of any Medicare bulk billing payment received.

It is understood that the property eventually reverts to Ochre ownership outright, which would mean that the land and building containing this conveyor-belt medical clinic would be able to be sold on for non-medical purposes in 2031 without penalty.
As the only consolation objecting neighbours have concerning this development is that it would provide a permanent super clinic for the local community, I wonder what they will think if any change of business type came to pass.

A brief history 29 January 2009 to 15 March 2010:

Super clinic site

NO doubt that the Valley is in great need of improved medical services.
Sixty-four people submitted written objection to (Clarence Valley) council regarding the location for the proposed (medical) super clinic (in Grafton).
I objected to the location of the super clinic in a residential area. I was one of many who gave a deputation at the site meeting with council's environment, economic and community committee, and the committee meeting on Tuesday. For three weeks I tried to contact Peter Bailey, of Ochre Health, to discuss my concerns. My calls went unanswered and unreturned. It has been very difficult for residents to get answers to their concerns.
At the site meeting citizens/voters were forbidden to ask any questions. At the site meeting Mr Bailey finally admitted that allied health service includes drug and alcohol treatment at the clinic, to be located in a residential area.
However, when asked by a councillor, Mr Bailey would not reveal why the site was the most suitable out of the other 15 sites allegedly considered.
The committee chair, Des Schroder, advised councillors that the developer's traffic study concluded 'no traffic issues'.
The DA reports an increase of an estimated 300 cars at this location, to begin with.
Ochre Health's report states 30,000 patients in year one, building to 60 by year eight. It is obscured to say the least to suggest such a significant increase in pedestrian and vehicle traffic will have no impact on the area, residential or otherwise.
The DA, and council, does not intend to put basic safety initiatives in place such as a pedestrian crossing or refuges at the site. Despite one councillor's concerns about site selection criteria, including river views for clinic staff, the matter will proceed to council vote this week.
This leaves very little time to exercise our democratic rights and speak out against the location of the super clinic as residents and voters of the Clarence Valley.
K VINCENT, Grafton.
- I WAS present at both the on-site meeting and the meeting of the CVC Environment, Economic and Community Committee meeting relating to DA 2010/0009 on Tuesday.
My strong impression was that I was witnessing a fairly elaborate charade with the issue at stake considered a foregone conclusion. It was deeply disappointing to me, as owner of 5 Fitzroy Street, Grafton, to hear Councillor Ian Tiley moving and Councillor Pat Comben seconding a motion that the DA be recommended for approval at the council meeting of Tuesday, March 16. Both councillors gave 'the greater good' as their justification. Surely 'the greater good' is that Grafton has secured the GP Super Clinic, a good not dependent on site chosen. Please note in this respect that 63 submissions made against the DA were objections to the location only (as compared to one submission of support).
Matters of concern:
(A) It is apparently indisputable that the DA could not be approved under the CVC's own existing 5(a) special uses (school/church) public purposes zoning arrangements. However, we are told that under clause 8 of the infrastructure SEPP if there is an inconsistency between the policy and any other environmental planning instrument, the policy prevails. My reading is that the EEC Committee therefore chose to avail themselves of the opportunity to over-ride their own council policy and the interests of affected ratepayers and residents in order to accommodate a large-scale commercial enterprise, something they concede is not generally referred to as a community purpose. Why? Why not adhere to council's own policy and leave it to the applicant/developer to respond? This would guarantee confidence in transparency and accountability. There are definitely other sites where the clinic could be more appropriately located.
(B) The chairman of the EEC Committee stated at the committee meeting of March 9 that there was only one DA relating to the super clinic for consideration at the meeting and that consideration of other sites was therefore irrelevant. Please consider these points. (i) There was, as far as I know, no community consultation re possible sites for construction of clinic. (ii) There was, as far as I know, no public call for expressions of interest. (iii) There was, according to Peter Bayley of Ochre Health Ltd, an understanding between St Mary's Parish (vendor) and Ochre Health (purchaser of site) that no contact with press or community be made until such time as a joint announcement be agreed. (iv) Well before this announcement was made on January 11, 2010, a DA had been lodged on Christmas Eve 2009. (v) The first communication I received came in a letter from Clarence Valley Council dated January 12, 2010 (received January 14) with an initial deadline for submissions of January 28. It is not surprising therefore that no other DA was before the committee. Further, an examination of the preceding points lends credibility to my impression that I have been participating in a charade.
(C) At both site and committee meeting some vital matters were dealt with cursorily or not at all: (a) The first of these is traffic. In my view, a GP Super Clinic means delay, congestion, frustration, an accident waiting to happen. (b) The second is the disregard for council's own policy re buildings and sites of historic interest. I have been in contact with the National Trust of NSW and the matter was considered by their advocacy unit. At present the Trust prefers not to be involved unless a building listed on their Special Register (there are two in this historic precinct) is threatened with demolition. However, they have asked to be kept informed.
- Edited for length.
KAY ALDEN, Grafton.



Super clinic for Grafton 29 January 2009

Provider chosen to run GP super clinic 15 July 2009

Super Clinic site a secret 17 November 2009

Site announced for new GP super clinic 13 January 2010

No methadone for super clinic 23 February 2010

GP says support for local doctors needed 24 February 2010

Sth Grafton calls for medical clinic 11 March 2010

Wednesday 26 August 2009

Brendan Nelson continues parliamentary tradition by treating the electorate as his personal plaything


If there is one thing I hate above all else in Australian politics it is that elected members of parliament appear to think that (after standing for election and entering into a contract which lasts until the next general election) it is best practice if they decide for matters unrelated to their health or family that they will retire early.

Liberal Party MP Brendan Nelson is the latest to treat electors as his playthings and the public purse as his to order, by deciding that he will retire at the end of September from the safe seat of Bradfield ahead of the next federal election saying:

"I would not be returning to the frontbench or the Liberal leadership should I stay, as such it is time to go'' .

Well, tough cheddar Mr. Nelson. It will cost the public purse at least a half million before poll results are called and, it is the height of self-indulgence (obviously endorsed by the most narcissistic of political parties) for you to decide that you have had enough of playing at politics outside of government.

An unnecessary burden on taxpayers in times of national economic uncertainty, by a typical specimen of the political class who will also be putting his hand out for a handsome pension/superannuation payout.

Thursday 4 September 2008

Just for the record, how tall/short is "the diminutive Opposition leader"?

The Australian's Online political editor, Samantha Maiden, reported that Labor MP Belinda Neal (who has been in the hot seat in relation to events that either did or did not take place at a restaurant on the NSW Central Coast) and the Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, engaged in a not so friendly exchange of words last Thursday during a Qantas flight between Canberra and Sydney.

Maiden wrote:

When the flight landed, Dr Nelson attempted to help Ms Neal with her bags, prompting the furious Labor MP to demand to know when he was going to apologise for the remarks. [Comment: Neal claims Nelson had previously made claims that she (Neal) was an "ugly bully".]

The clash was witnessed by the packed plane and deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop, who intervened. She later told colleagues Ms Neal attempted to physically intimidate the diminutive Opposition leader.

Friday 1 August 2008

Kevin on Earth begins to show some cracks

The latest Newspoll in The Australian on How we see our leaders [31 July 2007] demonstrates that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has the beginnings of an image problem.

The percentage of those Australians interviewed who thought Kevin Rudd arrogant rose from 34% in November 2007, to 33% in February-March this year and presently sits at 43%.
Brendan Nelson on the other hand fell in the arrogance stakes from 48% in February-March 2008 to 42% currently.

The Prime Minister also faded somewhat across all the survey categories , particularly when it came to perceptions of the degree to which he was 'in touch with voters'.
There Rudd dropped 13 percentage points this year.

Perhaps his initial love affair with popularist politics and those almost daily media announcements of 'grand ideas' were more than passing mistakes from which he could recover easily.
Credibility does just not rise up out of the ballot box, it is something that is hard earned in the weeks and months that follow electoral success.

Link to poll here.

Thursday 31 July 2008

The Libs decide to protect the planet and Nelson acts the fool for Kerry O'Brien

Well now we know, confusion over the Federal Opposition's position on emissions trading is over - because the Liberal Party announced yesterday that it was all about Protecting the Planet:

The Coalition Joint Party Room has today unanimously agreed to key principles in relation to climate change.
We give the planet the benefit of the doubt and support action on climate change. [my emphasis]
We support in principle an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) as part of a three pillars approach to combating climate change:
Clean Energy Policy;
International Pressure; and
An ETS.
The Coalition has deep suspicions about Mr Rudd and his ETS model and we will vigorously scrutinise the Government’s legislation based on:
The detail;
The modelling;
The impact on the cost of living; and
International developments.Australia must be part of a global response to reduce emissions however:
An ETS should commence when it is ready in an orderly, methodical and responsible manner which enjoys the broad support of Australian industry and protects vulnerable Australian households – not before 2011 and probably by 2012;
The design detail of an Australian ETS must be informed by the outcome of the Copenhagen meeting at the end of 2009;
The carbon price must be set at a level that reflects action by the rest of the world; and
If no action is underway – Australia must start an ETS slow, and low on price.
But Mr Rudd and his Government are on notice – the Coalition will not support a flawed Emissions Trading Scheme, nor will we support an ETS too far ahead of the rest of the world.
We will not sign a blank cheque on Australia’s future and will not support a scheme that will disadvantage Australia’s national interest and competitive advantage.
We properly reserve our position on Labor’s legislation until it is before the Parliament.
We will stand up for Australia.

It was almost painful to watch last night's ABC TV 7.30 Report and Brendan Nelson's attempt to put flesh on this announcement while justifying his weakening hold on the Liberal Party leadership.

Monday 16 June 2008

Show and tell in Federal Parliament?

Will the flood gates open in Australia's Federal Parliament today when Belinda Neal, the Member for Robertson, is expected to be in Parliament for the first time since the Iguanas nightclub incident?

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that a spokesman for Federal Opposition leader Brendan Nelson said, "We expect Mr Rudd to call on Belinda Neal to go into the chamber and explain what happened."

According to the
Herald, Nelson is set to exploit the MP-behaving-badly issue and press Mr Rudd to require Ms Neal to explain to Parliament her side of the story over the fracas with staff at the Gosford nightclub.

Comment:
MPs behaving badly? Brendan Nelson should be very careful. His side of the House has more than its fair share of MPs whose unacceptable behaviour could be highlighted.