The comments do concern me, as does any negative commentary. But...

The comments do concern me, as does any negative commentary.

But more to the point, what is the motivation/intention behind the commentary. Context is key.

The comment's she made which are a fair bit softer than her social media post offer's a number of positive and negative motivations.

She knows its getting refused so trying to get as many brownie points as possible. Bit of an aggressive play in my mind. You can score these points if its refused, so why create a pity big departure from the legislative process in a declaration like that (like KP said on Q+A about probity, which she seems to have ignored but if approved she is clear as you wouldn't be able to demonstrate a crystalised loss)

Conversely, she knows it's getting approved and wants to get out in front of it like JB.

(appreciate the simplicity of the commentary above, obviously numerous other ways of looking at it but offers a very simplistic assessment as i don't know if it overly changes the prospects from last week)

I'm putting the odds on the second but my assessment is obviously biased to the affirmative. Fingers crosses in any event, i think we are still where we were prior to the comments.