Daily News Roundup

June 19, 2019

Wednesday, June 19

The Matilda’s are through to the World Cup quarter finals, but while they beat 53rd placed Jamaica 4-1 early today, they have been warned by all and sundry that they need to improve if they are to progress any further.

They come up against Norway in a quarter final Sunday morning (Aust time).

While captain Sam Kerr was sensational with all four goals against Jamaica  the Matildas are far from the finished product as they begin the knockout stages.

Kerr fired in all four goals in a 4-1 rout of Jamaica to send the Matildas into a round-of-16 clash with Norway in Nice on Sunday at 5am (AEST) as the Aussies eye a deep run in France.

After seeing his side facing a possible third-placed finish in Group C, which was only avoided when Kerr scored her fourth goal, coach Ante Milicic was far from pleased.

The Jamaicans, who didn’t score in their earlier matches against Brazil and Italy, looked far too menacing for a team that was the lowest-ranked in the tournament.

“We have qualified for the next round but we need to be better,” Milicic said.

“We’re still getting caught on transition far too easily. It’s obviously a worrying concern — we’ve worked on it but we still need to be better.

“Yes they had some exceptional speed that caught us and the direct play at times challenged us but to go further in the tournament we have to get better.”

It took a defensive howler from Jamaica’s goalkeeper to ensure Australia avoided a death sentence round of 16 clash against either Germany or France.

Nicole McClure gift-wrapped Kerr’s fourth goal by failing to control a simple backpass.

Kerr appeared underwhelmed despite a historic performance which saw her become the first Australian to score a World Cup hat-trick and just the third woman in history to score four.

“We weren’t too pleased with our first half, but a win’s a win and that’s what we needed to build our confidence going into the next round,” Kerr said.

Former Socceroo Craig Foster fears the defensive frailties which were on show in Australia’s shock 2-1 defeat against Italy in their opening match are still to be solved.

“On one hand we’re all delighted because after the first game everything looked very clouded,” Foster said. “But in the round of 16 now we really need to improve.”

But as long as Kerr remains in this type of form there’s hope.

She started her goal spree with a looping header past Jamaica goal keeper  Nicole McClure in the 11th minute, from livewire winger Emily Gielnik.

Katrina Gorry, one of three changes to the Matildas side from their comeback triumph over Brazil, dinked a neat ball for Kerr to head in her second three minutes from halftime.

But the suggestion that Australia might use its athleticism to run over the top of the world No. 53 was quickly dispelled, when Khadija Shaw won a contest with Emily van Egmond to release Havana Soluan.

The 24-year-old rounded Lydia Williams and slotted home for a piece of history; Jamaica’s first goal at a Women’s World Cup.

Jamaica lifted their game and for 15 minutes, Shaw was uncontainable as they sought an equaliser.

As the scores stood, the Matildas faced the almighty challenge of Germany or France in their next match. That is, until Nicole McClure miss-controlled a backpass to allow Kerr her fourth, and a more manageable clash with Norway. “It’s an amazing feeling … but it was a team effort,” Kerr said.


Terminally-ill Victorians can now legally ask their doctor for lethal drugs to take their own lives under Australia’s only euthanasia laws.

The state’s voluntary assisted dying scheme, which is expected to be used by about 150 people annually, comes into effect from today.

Under the scheme, terminally-ill Victorian adults in intolerable pain and with less than six months to live, or 12 months for neurodegenerative diseases, and who meet 68 safeguards can request their doctor’s help in dying.

But while the laws are now in action, even if someone starts the process today it will take at least 10 days to be completed.

Victorians who meet all the relevant criteria will be able to take their own lives with a lethal injection.

It’s been 18 months since the Victorian parliament narrowly passed the laws during marathon sittings in 2017.

Since then a taskforce has been in charge of establishing how the system will work.

An independent review board and the coroner will keep track and monitor all deaths under the scheme.


Source: Victorian Government


  • Adults with a progressive, advanced terminal illness and less than six months to live or within 12 months for neurodegenerative diseases
  • Suffering must be deemed “intolerable”
  • They must be of sound mind
  • Must have lived in Victoria for at least 12 months and be an Australian citizen or permanent resident


  • Patients must make three, clear requests
  • Patients must initiate discussion of assisted dying and no one else
  • They will be assessed by two experienced doctors, including at least one specialist
  • Those approved will be granted permits for lethal medications, which must be self-administered
  • A permit will be given for doctors to administer medication only where the patient is physically unable
  • Only chemists at The Alfred Hospital will be able to prepare the medication
  • Doctors do not have to be present when patients administer medication
  • The process to apply and receive medication will take at least 10 days
  • Unused lethal medication must be returned within 15 days of death
  • The Department of Health and Human Services will approve applications
  • An independent review board will oversee each step of the process
  • Death certificates will record “voluntary assisted dying”
  • The coroner must be notified of assisted dying deaths


  • If someone breaches the self-administration permit, they face potential life imprisonment
  • Anyone who induces a person to request assisted dying faces up to five years jail and substantial fines
  • Doctors who suggest the assisted dying scheme to patients face a professional misconduct investigation


Exclusive by Kate McKenna

The widow of a Queensland doctor is asking the Supreme Court to support the use of  her late husband’s sperm in a bid to conceive their second child, reports the ABC’s Kate McKenna.

UK-born couple Dr Jennifer Gaffney, 35, an anaesthetist, and Dr Daniel Gaffney, 38, a dermatologist, had been together for more than 12 years and had a toddler son.

Dr Jennifer Gaffney, had just begun meeting with a fertility specialist to start the process of trying for another baby when her husband suddenly died from a coronary artery dissection while on an overnight work trip to the Sunshine Coast, the ABC report said.

His sperm was extracted the day after he was found dead.

In an affidavit filed to the Supreme Court in Brisbane, Dr Gaffney said she and her husband had “always planned” to expand their family and had spoken about the fertility appointments before his death.

She said she had “thought long and hard” about the effect of applying to use her deceased husband’s sperm to father another child.

“I have carefully considered this application to make sure that this is not made in response to my grief,” Dr Gaffney wrote in the affidavit.

“I have firmly formed a view that not only is this what Dan would want, it is what I want in his absence.

“I also strongly believe that another child will be in the best interests of [our other child].”

She said she was “acutely aware” that having another child as a solo parent would be challenging, but was confident she had the strength and community support to manage it.

“The biggest reason I have for taking on this challenge is to provide [our son] with a sibling, as I know that it will provide him with the opportunity to form the same friendships and bonds that Dan and I formed and treasured with our own siblings,” she wrote.

Meanwhile, a man who donated his sperm to a friend with the belief he could play a role in the child’s life has won a High Court fight sparked by the mother’s decision to move to New Zealand with their biological child.

The court was told the man was listed as the girl’s father on her birth certificate, and that she and her sister, to whom he was not related, called him as “daddy”.

The main issue before the High Court was whether the man was legally the girl’s father, or whether his role was limited to biology.

The girl’s mother and her wife argued the man was not her legal father, citing a New South Wales law setting out rules for fertilisation procedures, which specifically addressed the situation of same-sex couples.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.