Vic How would you rate Daniel Andrews' performance as Victorian Premier? - Part 6

[Opine]

You know that all the actual context I posted that you ignored is right there a mouse scroll above right? You're being a lightweight shitposter here.

No, you’re the one asserting the context you posted is right. Not me.

 

[adogsfan5]

I got a message letting me know walk ins are available at the state hub I went to for my first 2.

I'm not rushing it though. Last year when they rushed vaccines, they reduced efficacy. Pfizer recommended 6 months for a reason.

Very interested to know what the plan will be moving forward for boosters.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

No, you’re the one asserting the context you posted is right. Not me.

No, you're just in here being a lightweight who either has no idea about the topic or you know you're full of s**t and have no reply but shitposting and here we are.

 

[Deliverance]

Very interested to know what the plan will be moving forward for boosters.

I presume unless we get a more deadly variant, only immunocompromised and worriers will get a 4th dose.

 

[adogsfan5]

I presume unless we get a more deadly variant, only immunocompromised and worriers will get a 4th dose.

Experts around the globe have already said ongoing boosters every 6 months for all countries, for healthy people, just isn’t sustainable or affordable. Protect the vulnerable and the poorer countries that need it most.

 

[Opine]

No, you're just in here being a lightweight who either has no idea about the topic or you know you're full of sh*t and have no reply but shitposting and here we are.

You’re the one asserting it as true, its your context, it’s your version of events. Public record has it as Dan blowing 1.1 billion on damages for breaching of that agreement. I’ll stay with public record, I’m not privy to anything more.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

You’re the one asserting it as true, its your context, it’s your version of events. Public record has it as Dan blowing 1.1 billion on damages for breaching of that agreement. I’ll stay with public record, I’m not privy to anything more.

Yes, it's clear here you have one line, you're a lightweight. Read and learn.

 

[Opine]

Agree that is a strange thing to do. It’s not an issue of essential fundamental governance/ how the state is run.

That’s our premier.

 

[eddiesmith]

I got a message letting me know walk ins are available at the state hub I went to for my first 2.

I'm not rushing it though. Last year when they rushed vaccines, they reduced efficacy. Pfizer recommended 6 months for a reason.

But hasn’t the Premier said 2 weeks after you’re eligible you must get your booster or get the sack?

 

[Sttew]

Kennett is one of the most overrated peeps. Have a look at his business record. Made his reputation by selling off the farm and in the process irreparably damaged countless lives. Not the least of all in health which he ripped to smithereens. Classic example of bullshit baffles brains.

LOL.Like “selling off the farm” was / is unique to a conservative government. Paul Keating was the absolute master and created the blue print for successive federal and state governments, including the Andrews government

Also Andrew’s has presided over Victoria’s public health system for 11 of the past 15 years. Plenty time to do something

 

[Christopher Buttersnip]

Experts around the globe have already said ongoing boosters every 6 months for all countries, for healthy people, just isn’t sustainable or affordable. Protect the vulnerable and the poorer countries that need it most.

Had a quick look at the views on the matter of the future of vaccines and the conventional view is that the need for vaccines into the future is very much unclear.

The let-it-rip brigade (and I'm not saying you are one) have been consistently wrong when it comes to Covid and the actions required. There remain a few here who still sing from the Hildebrand songbook.

As to having the money to continue with vaccinations had we had a federal government that hadn't pissed billions away in JobKeeper to corporations who just added it to their bottom line; squandered goodness knows how many billions on the French submarine disaster; allocated billions for tanks military experts have said is a waste of money et al the cost of continuing with vaccinations wouldn't be an issue.

We are a long way from being out of the wood. Covid is far from under control in parts of Europe, Asia, and the US. In fact just read Massachusetts had its worst week to date.

Health outcomes first. The economy won't recover until that is the focus.

 

[adogsfan5]

Had a quick look at the views on the matter of the future of vaccines and the conventional view is that the need for vaccines into the future is very much unclear.

The let-it-rip brigade (and I'm not saying you are one) have been consistently wrong when it comes to Covid and the actions required. There remain a few here who still sing from the Hildebrand songbook.

As to having the money to continue with vaccinations had we had a federal government that hadn't pissed billions away in JobKeeper to corporations who just added it to their bottom line; squandered goodness knows how many billions on the French submarine disaster; allocated billions for tanks military experts have said is a waste of money et al the cost of continuing with vaccinations wouldn't be an issue.

We are a long way from being out of the wood. Covid is far from under control in parts of Europe, Asia, and the US. In fact just read Massachusetts had its worst week to date.

Health outcomes first. The economy won't recover until that is the focus.

The WHO said recently it’s not sustainable to continue constantly boostering the population. Same thing mentioned by an Oxford vaccine Scientist who assisted with the AZ vaccine. Not sure they are in the “let it rip” brigade?

We’ve wasted so much money as you said. Staggering we aren’t sending vaccines to countries where new variants might come from.

Not out of the woods at all, but in terms of the “let it rippers”- you may as well now add Perrottet, Andrews, Dr John Gerrard and Annastacia Palaszczuk to that list then, as we are in fact letting it rip here in the east, are we not?

 

[Opine]

Yes, it's clear here you have one line, you're a lightweight. Read and learn.

Hey Heavyweight.

I've just glanced over the Victorian Auditor-General Office review of the termination of EWL.

The side letter you've been going on about was deemed not to have increased the State's exposure and did not affect the termination settlement. The contract was open to be terminated according to its standard terms with no comp paid. They eventually reached a settlement to predominately cover costs, the letter appears not to have had an effect. VAGO stated that "the only scenario under which the side letter can be argued to have created additional exposures for the State is one in which the State did not have the authority to sign the contract., and advice obtained by the government both before and after the election indicated that this was very unlikely."

Sure, VAGO found that the Libs rushed to execute the agreement by the 2014 election; likely typical electioneering . However, it also found that the ALP didn't conduct due diligence on whether it was viable to terminate the deal at the cost of 1.1 billion for little return..

Importantly there is nothing to substantiate your accusations that a motive was to screw over incoming government and or the Vic public. So it appears that either 1) you’re misrepresenting the events that took place or 2) VAGO erred in its review or 3) You’re privy to confidential information which VAGO wasn’t but which you’re now publicly revealing .

Moreover, according to an article from “The Guardian” the ALP promised voters that they wouldn’t be paying “a cent” to terminate the agreement.

 

[ralphmalph]

But keep Anzac Day, I like it when they march through town for my birthday.

Mine’s the day before, brother. We all get a day off to recover.

 

[ralphmalph]

Hey Heavyweight.

I've just glanced over the Victorian Auditor-General Office review of the termination of EWL.

The side letter you've been going on about was deemed not to have increased the State's exposure and did not affect the termination settlement. The contract was open to be terminated according to its standard terms with no comp paid under that side letter. They eventually reached a settlement and that letter appears not to have had an effect. VAGO stated that "the only scenario under which the side letter can be argued to have created additional exposures for the State is one in which the State did not have the authority to sign the contract., and advice obtained by the government both before and after the election indicated that this was very unlikely."

Sure, VAGO found that the Libs rushed to execute the agreement by the 2014 election; likely typical electioneering . However, it also found that the ALP didn't conduct due diligence on whether it was viable to terminate the deal at the cost of 1.1 billion for little return..

Importantly there is nothing to substantiate your accusations. So it appears that either 1) you’re misrepresenting the events that took place or 2) VAGO erred in its review or 3) You’re privy to confidential information which VAGO wasn’t privy to, but which you’re now publicly revealing .

Moreiver, according to an article from “The Guardian” the ALP promised voters that they wouldn’t be paying “a cent” to terminate the agreement.

The three previous paragraphs in the bit you quote:

The contract signed by the state with EWC was standard in most respects and generally consistent with the standard commercial principles established by the National PPP Policy and Guidelines and the Partnerships Victoria requirements, as well as with recent precedent transactions. However, in departures from standard practice for PPP transactions in Victoria, the state agreed to the inclusion of clause 58—Specific Key Approval Event in the contract, and signed a side letter confirming the state's commitment to honour the contract. These variations from standard contractual terms were requested by EWC.

Clause 58 increased the state's exposure in circumstances where the planning approval decision was found to be invalid, as compared to the standard provisions of the contract. The risk and exposure for the state created by clause 58 was linked to the outcome of the judicial review of the planning decision for the project.

Given that the state was aware of the significant risk that the planning approval decision would be quashed, the decision to proceed to contract signing was, in effect, a 'gamble' that the judicial review proceedings would not impact the project significantly.

 

[Opine]

The three previous paragraphs in the bit you quote:

The contract signed by the state with EWC was standard in most respects and generally consistent with the standard commercial principles established by the National PPP Policy and Guidelines and the Partnerships Victoria requirements, as well as with recent precedent transactions. However, in departures from standard practice for PPP transactions in Victoria, the state agreed to the inclusion of clause 58—Specific Key Approval Event in the contract, and signed a side letter confirming the state's commitment to honour the contract. These variations from standard contractual terms were requested by EWC.

Clause 58 increased the state's exposure in circumstances where the planning approval decision was found to be invalid, as compared to the standard provisions of the contract. The risk and exposure for the state created by clause 58 was linked to the outcome of the judicial review of the planning decision for the project.

Given that the state was aware of the significant risk that the planning approval decision would be quashed, the decision to proceed to contract signing was, in effect, a 'gamble' that the judicial review proceedings would not impact the project significantly.

They are 2 seperate issues.

Clause 58 related to risk of planning approval being over turned on appeal. It was understandably requested by the contractor to protect its commitment and costs associed with delay. It amounted to the State agreeing to pay a pre-agreed sum for delay to project commencement. That clause would have had no impact once the agreement was terminated. There’s principally nothing strange about requesting such a clause: it was obvious objectors were going to appeal planning approval with likely delays, a prudent contractor would have insisted on it.

The side letter was also requested by the contractor presumably to protect its position in the event that government was found not to have had capacity to execute the agreement. That did not become an issue and was presumably never triggered

 

[Opine]

The VAGO report also goes on to cast doubt on adequacy of some of the advice given to government by its various department/s particularly regarding project cost .But there is nothing to implicate any member of government in a deliberate attempt to screw over the incoming government and or the Victorian public.

 

[Opine]

This is you deflecting after being found with your pants down.

The Coalition rushed into a contract for a project that they knew was a massive loser weeks before caretaker for shitty political purposes.

They also added a sh*t clause and secret side letter to make sure that Victorian taxpayers would be screwed out of $1 billion to make Labour look bad for promising to not go ahead with the project. Labour looks bad or costs the State a billion! Can't lose there if you're an evil Coalition campaigner!

Labour wins and gets to choose between a ~$30 billion project that returns 50 cents in the dollar and has them breaking an election promise

OR

Kill the contract as promised before the election and have ~ $1 billion in costs because the Coalition signed a shitty contract written to gift a consortium free money on a contract facing legal challenges with a secret side letter ensuring the payment of compensation.

You're sitting here celebrating your mob costing the State $1 billion for sheer political bastardry and attempting to blame it on the government that fell on that grenade.

You and your lot are vandals. You're happy to do any amount of damage for a political win.

sh*t stains.

It should be clear now that I wasn’t deflecting when we exchanged posts earlier. I was being sincere, albeit apparently naive, in that I hadn’t read the report detailing much of the basis of your argument. I’ve reviewed it now; which is evident given the time and I’m still up.

Also, being familiar with agreements in that sector, I’m happy to discuss this particular topic with you. I dare say you should feel more than merely comfortable doing so given I’m just a “light weight”. Teach me a few things. I’ll probably enjoy it.

I hope you don’t mind if I start: what was “evil” about that letter.?

 

[Crankyhawk]

But hasn’t the Premier said 2 weeks after you’re eligible you must get your booster or get the sack?

Was industry specific in my recall (aged care, health care, emergency services) but he did say that he could see a point where booster is part of mandate for all but is not yet there. Yet.

 

[Deliverance]

But hasn’t the Premier said 2 weeks after you’re eligible you must get your booster or get the sack?

I'll find out soon enough.

 

[eddiesmith]

Was industry specific in my recall (aged care, health care, emergency services) but he did say that he could see a point where booster is part of mandate for all but is not yet there. Yet.

Cheers, thought he’d extended to most sectors which the initial mandate applied. I know it applies to us in one of the first announcements.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

It should be clear now that I wasn’t deflecting when we exchanged posts earlier. I was being sincere, albeit apparently naive, in that I hadn’t read the report detailing much of the basis of your argument. I’ve reviewed it now; which is evident given the time and I’m still up.

Also, being familiar with agreements in that sector, I’m happy to discuss this particular topic with you. I dare say you should feel more than merely comfortable doing so given I’m just a “light weight”. Teach me a few things. I’ll probably enjoy it.

I hope you don’t mind if I start: what was “evil” about that letter.?

If you stayed up all night reading, actually did read the VAGO report and still want to argue the East/West compo was Labour's fault you're either incapable of being taught anything or you're just full of s**t.

 

[Gralin]

I presume unless we get a more deadly variant, only immunocompromised and worriers will get a 4th dose.

you must be so tough

 

[Deliverance]

you must be so tough

Survived 4 decades without a flu vax.

 

[Saint]

If you stayed up all night reading, actually did read the VAGO report and still want to argue the East/West compo was Labour's fault you're either incapable of being taught anything or you're just full of sh*t.

It's like the bible. It's so big that you can take any part you want out of context and have it say what you like.

But here's the front page on the VAGO website. If you don't provide the advice to Govt that they want to hear, they'll hire a consultant who will. I don't think you need to dig deep into the report to find the odds and ends of it all.

The audit found that the EWL business case did not provide a sound basis for the government’s decision to commit to the investment and that key decisions during the project planning, development and procurement phases were driven by an overriding sense of urgency to sign the contract before the November 2014 state election.

Advice to government in the lead up to signing the contract did not sufficiently assess the benefits of delaying contract signing to mitigate risks posed by the unresolved legal challenge to the project planning approval decision. Signing the contract in these circumstances was imprudent and exposed the state to significant cost and risk.

The amount payable by the state under the termination settlement was substantially lower than the cost of terminating under the project contract. However the decision to terminate was made without full consideration of the merits to completing the project.

Over the life of this costly and complex project, advice to government did not always meet the expected standard of being frank and fearless. This highlights a risk to the integrity of public administration that needs to be addressed. The report makes recommendations to the Department of Treasury & Finance to provide guidance for development and delivery of major projects and for the Department of Premier & Cabinet to emphasise requirements for frank and fearless advice from the public sector.

https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/east-west-link-project?section=