The first Roy Morgan face-to-face poll of Tony Abbott’s Liberal leadership covers the last two weekends of polling, and it fails to replicate the encouraging results for Abbott in Morgan’s two earlier small-sample phone polls. Labor’s primary vote is up two points on Malcolm Turnbull’s last poll to 49 per cent, while the Coalition is up 0.5 per cent to 35.5 per cent. The Greens are down 1.5 per cent to 8 per cent. Labor’s lead on two-party preferred is up from 58.5-41.5 to 59-41.
Festive preselection action:
• Former Davis Cup tennis player John Alexander has won the Liberal preselection for Bennelong, having earlier tried and failed in Bradfield. Despite predictions of a close contest, the Sydney Morning Herald reported the Left-backed Alexander had an easy first round win over local business executive Mark Chan, scoring 67 votes in the ballot of 120 preselectors. As the Herald tells it, “the right split and the hard right deserted Mr Chan”, although VexNews notes the seat is “not a centre of factional operations for either camp”. The also-rans were businessman Steve Foley and financial services director Melanie Matthewson.
• Wanneroo mayor Jon Kelly has withdrawn his nomination for Labor preselection in the Perth northern suburbs federal seat of Cowan, after earlier being considered certain to get the gig. This comes in the wake of a Corruption and Crime Commission finding that Kelly had put himself at “risk” of misconduct through his relationship with Brian Burke. Burke presumably knew what he was doing when he subsequently endorsed Kelly, going on to say he had “sought my help on many occasions and I’ve always been available to assist him”. The West Australian reported the withdrawal was the product of a “mutual” decision reached after “a week of talks with Labor officials”, which included federal campaign committee chairman and Brand MP Gary Gray. Potential replacements named by The West are Dianne Guise and Judy Hughes, who respectively lost their local seats of Wanneroo and Kingsley at the state election last September. The ABC reports a decision is expected in mid-January.
• The Western Australian ALP has also confirmed Tim Hammond, Louise Durack and ECU history lecturer Bill Leadbetter as candidates for Swan, Stirling and Pearce.
• The NSW Liberals have selected incumbents Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Bill Heffernan to head their Senate ticket, reversing the order from 2004. The Coalition agreement reserves the third position for the Nationals – I am not aware of any suggestion their candidate will be anyone other than incumbent Fiona Nash. Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports Heffernan needed the backing of Tony Abbott to ward off challenges from David Miles, a public relations executive with Pfizer, and George Bilic, a Blacktown councillor.
• Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald notes Left figurehead Anthony Albanese’s chutzpah in calling for the Macquarie preselection to be determined by rank-and-file party ballot, after the role he played in imposing numerous candidates elsewhere as a member of the party’s national executive. Albanese reportedly believes Left candidate Susan Templeman would win a local ballot, although the earlier mail was that the Right’s Adam Searle had the numbers and it was the Left who wanted national executive intervention.
• Final Liberal two-party margin from the Bradfield by-election: 14.8 per cent. From Higgins: 10.2 per cent. Respective turnouts were 81.51 per cent and 79.00 per cent, compared with 80.12 per cent at the Mayo by-election, 87.41 per cent in Lyne and 89.68 per cent in Gippsland. Question: if the results have been declared, why hasn’t the AEC published preference distributions?
• VexNews reports Saturday’s Liberal preselection for the Victorian state seat of Ripon was a clear win for the unsuccessful candidate from 2006, Vic Dunn, who my records tell me is “the local inspector at Maryborough”. Dunn reportedly scored 53 votes against 26 for Institute of Public Affairs agriculture policy expert and preselection perennial Louise Staley and four for local winery owner John van Beveren. Joe Helper holds the seat for Labor on a maergin of 4.3 per cent.
• The Berwick Star reports that Lorraine Wreford, the newly elected mayor of Casey, refused to confirm or deny reports she lodged a nomination for Liberal preselection in the state seat of Mordialloc last Friday. Janice Munt holds the seat for Labor on a margin of 3.5 per cent.
• The Country Voice SA website reports that one of its regular contributors, former SA Nationals president Wilbur Klein, will be the party’s candidate for Flinders at the March state election. The seats was held by the party prior to 1993, when it was won by its now-retiring Liberal member Liz Penfold.
• On Tuesday, The West Australian provided further data from the 400-sample Westpoll survey discussed a few posts ago, this time on attitudes to an emissions trading scheme. Forty per cent wanted it adopted immediately, down from 46 per cent two months ago. However, there was also a fall in the number wanting the government to wait until other countries committed to targets, from 47 per cent to 43 per cent. The remainder “ favoured other options to cut emissions or did not know”.
• Paul Murray of The West Australian offers some interesting electoral history on the occasion of the passing of former Liberal-turned-independent state MP Ian Thompson:
Shortly after the State election in February 1977, allegations began to emerge from both sides of politics about dirty deeds in the seat of Kimberley. Liberal sitting member Alan Ridge beat Labor’s Ernie Bridge on preferences by just 93 votes. The Liberals were the first to strike, claiming Labor was manipulating Aboriginal voters, but the move backfired badly. A subsequent Court of Disputed Returns case turned up scathing evidence of a deliberate Liberal campaign to deny Aboriginals the vote using underhand tactics and the election result was declared void on November 7.
Returning officers in the Kimberley for years had allowed illiterate Aboriginals to use party how-to-vote cards as an indication of their voting intention. What became apparent later was that Labor had put hundreds of Aboriginal voters on the roll and generally mobilised the indigenous community. The Liberals flew a team of young lawyers up from Perth to act as scrutineers at polling booths, with a plan to stop illiterate voters. The Court government pressured the chief electoral officer to instruct returning officers in the Kimberley to challenge illiterate voters and not accept their how-to-vote cards.
The court case turned up a letter of thanks from Mr Ridge to a Liberal Party member, who stood as an independent, saying “a third name on the ballot paper created some confusion among the illiterate voters and there is no doubt in my mind that it played a major part in having me re-elected”. Mr Ridge’s letter said that unless the Electoral Act was changed to make it more difficult for illiterate Aboriginals to cast their votes, the Liberals would not be able to win the seat.
Two days after the court ordered a new election, premier Sir Charles introduced in the Legislative Assembly a Bill to do just that. How-to-vote cards could not be used, nor could an instruction of a vote for just one candidate. Labor went ballistic, saying no illiterate voter would meet the test.
What transpired over nine hours was one of the most bitter debates ever seen in the WA Parliament and the galvanising of a new breed of Labor head kickers – Mr Burke, Mal Bryce, Bob Pearce and Arthur Tonkin, who came to power six years later. On November 10, it became apparent that the government was in trouble when one of the four National Country Party members not in the coalition Cabinet, Hendy Cowan, said he opposed the Bill because it disenfranchised all illiterate voters. When it came to the vote, the four NCP members crossed the floor and the maverick Liberal member for Subiaco, Dr Tom Dadour, abstained. The numbers split 25-25.
From the Speaker’s chair, Ian Thompson calmly noted that the law said when a Court of Disputed Returns ordered a by-election it had to be held under the same conditions as the original poll. If the Government wanted to amend the Electoral Act, it should do so after the by-election.
“Therefore I give my casting vote with the ‘Noes’ and the Bill is defeated,” he said. Hansard unusually recorded applause.
He’s right Frank. Any plain reading, plus any reading between the lines clearly leaves Chris O’Brien and his reputation well out of it. You really are imagining things that aren’t there.
And from the Eulogy itself:
[That, Chris, is your life’s legacy. Because without you mate, it wouldn’t have happened, it’s as simple as that. And here in Sydney, the project nearest and dearest to his heart, Lifehouse at the RPA, it will be built. No ifs, no buts, no maybes, it will be built. And the building will start by year’s end if I have to drive the bulldozer myself.]
http://www.pm.gov.au/node/5108
Well done, Frank. A quote not from the funeral, but from the sod turning ceremony, just like Peter said. You’re on fire.
[He’s right Frank. Any plain reading, plus any reading between the lines clearly leaves Chris O’Brien and his reputation well out of it. You really are imagining things that aren’t there.]
Wrong, read the last paragraph:
[Alas, instead of a bulldozer, the best NSW could offer the PM was a ceremonial shovel to turn the first sod.
What is surprising is the PM is also reported to have made this comment:
” The premier is working hard. I have worked with her hard through my office and our health agency on this particular project here at RPA. ”
Given that Keneally has been Premier for less than 3 weeks, the centre is not in her electorate and she did not previously have ministerial responsibility for it, it is difficult to understand what the PM was talking about. I hope he was not referring to the hard work of organising the sod-turning ceremony.]
If that is not an attack on Chris O’Brien’s memory then I’ll be gobsmacked – if itb was any other project I would have no problem, but with this glaring example, then I’m sorry It is a disgusting attaxck on the legacy on a fine human being.
Jesus you’re stupid, Frank.
[Well done, Frank. A quote not from the funeral, but from the sod turning ceremony, just like Peter said. You’re on fire.]
Wrong again, the last quote was from the Euolgy. I shall quote it in full.
[
11 June 2009
Eulogy at Professor Chris O’Brien’s State Funeral – St Mary’s Cathedral – Sydney
To Gail and to members of the family, to friends one and all of this great man, Chris O’Brien.
From time to time there are those who reach out and touch our souls, who shake us from our inward preoccupations. Who cause us to once again look up and then to look beyond ourselves. And then to realise afresh the simple, yet ancient wisdom of Saint Francis that it is in giving that we receive.
Lives such as these have a single distinguishing feature. They cause the rest of us to change. Chris O’Brien was such a man. Not just great company, of course he was. Not just a diligent colleague, he was that in spades. Not just a loyal friend, he was the best you could have. Not just a loving father, for his children are living and eloquent testimony of his extraordinary love for them. And not just a devoted life partner, because rarely have I known a relationship so tender, so close, so supportive as his with Gail.
For Chris O’Brien was all of these things and as the psalmists would say, ‘pressed down and running over’. But beyond all these things, and any one of them would be sufficient for any other man’s eulogy, Chris O’Brien reached out beyond himself and fundamentally changed lives.
He did so of course with his hands, surgeon’s hands, hands of great skill. And so he saved the lives of many.
But more critically, he did so with his heart and in a profoundly human and profoundly spiritual way. He did not deny his suffering, he embraced it. And then he deployed it. He sought to capture the nation’s imagination on how as a nation we could do better, much better, much, much better in fighting a disease which afflicts tens of thousands of our fellow Australians every year. A disease which in one way or another has touched the lives of practically everyone gathered today in this great cathedral in Sydney.
And Chris’s simple refrain was this – we can do better, we must do better and we will do better.
But beyond being the visionary that he was, he was also an intensely practical man. He painstakingly explained to me the first time I met him what integrated or comprehensive cancer care actually meant, or why it simply made sense to co-locate the scientists, the technicians, the clinicians, the carers and of course most importantly the patients themselves because the creativity of this virtuous circle of collaboration would of itself produce the best possible results.
And of course, Chris was right. But not only was he right, he has had an effect. He got inside not just the head of the nation, but the heart of the nation as well. He also got inside the head and the heart of his Prime Minister because of the compelling and overwhelming eloquence of the testimony of his life.
And so what are the effects? Well Chris, you had a big effect. This year the Australian Government announced $1.3 billion for the new National Cancer Initiative with integrated comprehensive cancer care at its heart, integrated cancer care across the nation.
That, Chris, is your life’s legacy. Because without you mate, it wouldn’t have happened, it’s as simple as that. And here in Sydney, the project nearest and dearest to his heart, Lifehouse at the RPA, it will be built. No ifs, no buts, no maybes, it will be built. And the building will start by year’s end if I have to drive the bulldozer myself.
I asked him whether we could call this Centre the Chris O’Brien Centre. He flatly said: “No.” I said: “We’re paying the bills, so who are you to object?” Again he said: “No”. To which I say today, tough luck mate because this is a conversation I will now have Gail and members of the family and our friends at RPA.
Last Thursday evening, it was my privilege to spend a little time with Chris and his family just before he died. I read to him his citation for his appointment as an Officer of the Order of Australia. Her Excellency, the Governor General had already made special arrangements to confer that honour on him at Admiralty House this week. That was not to be.
I do not know if Chris heard the citation as I read it, but I felt that he gently squeezed my hand as I did. Here lies a man who touched my life. Here lies a man who touched the nation’s soul and we, the nation, Australia, are the richer for him having lived and having worked among us.
Farewell my friend.]
[Jesus you’re stupid, Frank.]
You’ll live to regret that last jibe 🙂
I give up.
[I give up.]
Google and pm.gov.au are your friend 🙂
Frank = # 2900
You really are sillier than I thought.
If this:
“I said when we farewelled Chris at a state funeral at St Mary’s Cathedral in June of this year that if I had to drive the bulldozer myself by Christmas then I would do so, in order to make sure that we got this project underway.”
is a quote from what Rudd said at the funeral, wouldn’t you think it weird that whilst speaking at the funeral he would have used those exact words.
It is highly likely howeer, that he said those words months later. Indeed, the direct quote of what he said in December 2009 is contained in this report:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/22/2778365.htm
It seems you don’t get it. Is that because you are not intelligent enough to do so, or is it because you stubbornly don’t want to?
[Frank = # 2900
You really are sillier than I thought.]
Read the full Euolgy, it is YOU who is silly, not me 🙂
And with Peter’s entirely accurate comment, I’ll be drawing a line under any further discussion of this. It embarrasses me to be playing host to it.
FULL RUDD STORY
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/22/2778365.htm
”
Rudd turns sod at Chris O’Brien cancer centre
Posted Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:13pm AEDT
* Map: Camperdown 2050
The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally have turned the first sod on the Lifehouse cancer research centre in Sydney.
The centre is being built in honour Chris O’Brien, the renowned surgeon who died earlier this year from brain cancer.
Mr Rudd says Mr O’Brien resisted attempts to name the centre after him, but he would have been very proud of the work it will do.
“It is with that mix of sadness and joy that we gather together at this place today,” he said.
“I said when we farewelled Chris at a state funeral at St Mary’s Cathedral in June of this year that if I had to drive the bulldozer myself by Christmas then I would do so, in order to make sure that we got this project underway.”
The new centre will be built at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital – it is due to open in 2012. ”
How you Petey Young turned this innocent article as above praising Chris Brien on an attack on Rudd or th NSW Govt is Liberal right winger type spin
its not due to open till 2012
Th incompetant NSW Govt has NO relevanse to this article at all , but you tried disengenuously to do so , sucessfully it seems , well not for mine This Frank is i feel what you could hav said
[Th incompetant NSW Govt has NO relevanse to this article at all , but you tried disengenuously to do so , sucessfully it seems , well not for mine This Frank is i feel what you could hav said]
I did till I was blue in the face, but Peter had Herr William onside.
But thanks for the back up 🙂
Just another example of the paralysis in NSW governance caused by the 3 month (minimum) personality/factional war. The roosters are coming home to roost. A government cannot be in a constant state of intercine warfare, and expect governance to proceed normally.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/shortage-of-candidates-stalls-foi-20091227-lgac.html
There has been a running battle between some about an implied criticism of the late Dr O’Brien.
I for one did not know enough to side with any of the participants so I just noted the comments and contained on my merry way.
At post 2854 our host offered the opinion that the “defender” of Dr O’Brien was a “half wit”.
After a little research I have come to the opinion that our host is, on this occasion, shall we say just a little short on being right.
The original shot in this little conservation was that the NSW Government (I assume through the NSW Health Department) has again shown its incompetence because it was late in turning the first sod of the building project (was it?)
The defenders of Dr O’Brien were upset that this cast an unfavourable light on the late Doctor.
It would appear that these defenders might have been right however; I don’t think it was deliberate attempt to besmirch the late Doctors reputation.
From what I can see the only involvement of the NSW Government was –
1) it contributed money
and
2) it had to approve the development
and
it allowed co hosting of the new facility with the RPA
The entity responsibility for the “Lifehouse Cancer Centre” falls to a charity, Lifehouse at RPA, a not-for-profit Public Benevolent institution.
I believe that this is the entity that Dr O’Brien headed until his death. I believe that this is supported by the composition of the Board that runs this entity where one of the “Board Members” is Gail O’Brien, the late Doctors widow.
For further information on this entity please see http://lifehouserpa.org.au/AboutLifehouse.aspx
It would appear that the argument put forward that this implied criticism reflected on the late Doctor may therefore be correct, as he was the mover and shaker of the controlling entity of this project which it would appear was therefore responsible for the “late” commencement of the building activities and not the NSW Government or one of its arms.
It would appear that some my want to reconsider their comments on respect of this matter.
Ratsars, I don’t begrudge you for not being on top of this. Indeed, I envy you. However, the situation is that the “defender” of Dr O’Brien is “defending” him from an attack that wasn’t made, and you have chased a red herring in attempting to determine whether such an attack might have been justified. Frank helpfully reposted the contentious comment by Peter Young here. I leave it to your own judgement as to whether the comment constitutes an attack on O’Brien, as distinct from Rudd and Keneally.
Okay, on reading your comment more closely, I now see you are arguing that criticism was “implied” because O’Brien was once involved in the project and there is an implication it should have made more progress. However, as the issue is the degree of progress made on meeting a promise made by Kevin Rudd after O’Brien died, this seems to me enormously tenuous. Nonetheless, I do have to acknowledge there might be a tiny thread of logic at work there, and will concede my abuse of Frank should have been qualified slightly, notwithstanding the logical absurdities he regularly committed while pursuing his argument.
William
“I leave it to your own judgement as to whether the comment constitutes an attack on O’Brien, as distinct from Rudd and Keneally.”
agree with that FULL sentense
which was exactly what i said in my #2913
but i was ALSO said anyone reading th full text of th story and Rudd’s quotes in FULL will see that Peter Youngs original post “attacking” Rudd and th incompetant NSW Govt was false & spin , th article can NO relevanse to th incompetent NSW Govt at all
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/22/2778365.htm
Ron, I offer no judgement on whether Peter’s attack on the NSW government was fair or not. All I’m saying is that that’s what it was – an attack on the NSW government.
William,
Thank you for your courteous reply. You are correct that I am not entirely on top of this and all I did was do a little (very little really) research to see who had responsibility for what.
In respect of the previous post by Peter Young I have a few questions/suggestions that I think may throw some light on some peoples postings on this matter.
1) “Could it happen anywhere else but in NSW?”
This is a direct criticism of someone/thing/entity which later on we find out is the NSW Government. I have no argument with this because in most cases any criticism of the NSW Government is usually warranted
2) “PM Rudd promised work would begin on a cancer research centre by Christmas 2009”. On whose behalf was he making this promise? Surely not the NSW Government nor I think the Federal Government. This is a personal declaration of support by the PM. It is also worth noting that this promise was largely met.
3) What has the following statement go to do with anything?
”If it was in any other state, you would expect that by now work would have been well and truly underway, with at least the foundations laid out, in accordance with the PM’s promise.
This can only be the subject of the criticism from (1) above.
But what has this got to do with the Lifehouse Centre? The State Government involvement is very, limited as I mentioned before.
I can see the logic in the reasoning of those coming to the defence of the late Doctor in that if anyone is responsible for these event being later (?) it is not/cant be the NSW Government and therefore must be the entity that is responsible for such action – ie the Foundation of which the late Doctor was the driving force.
As I mentioned before I don’t think that Peter Young intended to make any comment regarding the good Doctor but inadvertently has cast him in the role of being at least associated with an incompetent run event/project.
I think that the enthusiasm of some in support of a person who was a very talented and worthy member of the Nation and his profession is to be applauded even if that support is a little shall we say too passionate.
[On whose behalf was he making this promise? Surely not the NSW Government nor I think the Federal Government. This is a personal declaration of support by the PM.]
What value does a promise of Kevin Rudd’s have if it’s not on behalf of the federal government? What’s he going to do, build it himself? If only the Foundation is responsible for the project’s progress, what business does Rudd have making promises about when construction will proceed?
William
Apologies.
I did that second post before reading your post 2918
William,
The Federal Government is not in the business of building medical institutions/facilities. It may provide grants of money but the building is usually done by the Stare Government or one of its arms or by some private body. In this case it is the Foundation that the late Doctor headed.
Is there any indication that the Federal Government was directly involved in the planning/building of this building?
As I mentioned I read this as being a statement of personal support for this project by the PM.
[What value does a promise of Kevin Rudd’s have if it’s not on behalf of the federal government? What’s he going to do, build it himself? If only the Foundation is responsible for the project’s progress, what business does Rudd have making promises about when construction will proceed?]
Maybe by speeding up some of the Federal Red Tape that may be involved and ensuring the Federal Funding is fastracked and not subject to the usual tit for tat demarcation re State/Federal funds.
[The Federal Government is not in the business of building medical institutions/facilities.]
Although its head is apparently in the business of making sod-turning ceremonies at said facilities into photo opportunities for himself.
[Although its head is apparently in the business of making sod-turning ceremonies at said facilities into photo opportunities for himself.]
Hello,
How many times have you seen John Howard do EXACTLY the same thing when he was PM ?
William, You can do better than that.
John who?
[John who?]
Kids and their short memories – 🙂
New thread.
In closing, I would like to thank Frank for taking my abuse in good humour (certain of his past antagonists would have been sending me death threats at this point), and to again concede that his basic argument might not have been as stupid as he made it appear.