As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed. The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.
This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.
and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598
Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says
The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.
Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.
"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.
well the fiberals are good at one thing, blaming everybody else...A+ for that.
Shadow Gaming Minister Martin Pakula laid blame on the Kennett government, of which Dr Napthine was a member, saying it put in rules for Tattersalls, now Tatts, that granted it compensation.
Mr Pakula said if the government had strong legal advice, then it should appeal.
"The Premier, because he is in desperate straits, thinks it is appropriate to blame everything on Daniel Andrews,'' Mr Pakula said.
"The reality is Daniel Andrews was not the gaming minister in 2008 and even the most basic bit of research could have told both the Premier and the Treasurer that.''
interesting that article Boris, Murdoch's been playing 'king maker' in Australia for a very long time
Whitlam never gave him his ear or the power he wanted
to think I once purchased shares in newsorp, sold them off years ago 
"Tabcorp argued that when the government privatised the TAB and listed Tabcorp on the sharemarket in 1994, it enacted a law that guaranteed the company a payment when its 18-year licence expired in 2012."
And that C&P means what exactly other than being a C&P?
Only Tabcorp failed in its action : "Justice Hargrave, however, said that he accepted that the outcome for Tabcorp was "manifestly unfair and unreasonable" and said it was "an unfortunate case of the harsh reality of sovereign risk"
"sovereign risk" When a government changes the rules after the fact, (is sneaky).
"Justice Hargrave found in Tatts' favour based on a pact the company reached with the Kennett government in 1995, in which the company had to pay the government substantial licence fees for poker machines."
That is not worth explaining if you do not even appreciate the consequences of Brumby's attempted sneakiness in 2008.
"The skullduggery that goes on within the Vic. lib party is very interesting Am."
"skulduggery" is standard for politics, but sovereign actions which cause shareholders loss whilst attempting to circumvent financial agreements made in good faith are despicable.
In 2008 the ALP Brumby government "reneged" on a financial agreement with Tabcorp holdings (TAH)
nɥºɾ
The legal chicanery employed by Victoria’s Brumby Labor government in 2008 has proved semi-successful. That doesn’t make it more palatable, either to Tabcorp shareholders or the Napthine government that has inherited its outcomes.
Victoria’s Supreme Court yesterday handed down its judgements on actions taken by Tabcorp and Tatts against the changes to the state’s gaming industry that resulted in them losing their gaming licences without compensation, despite provisions in both their licences that appeared to guarantee them compensation if the licences weren’t renewed.
Justice Hargrave, however, held that while Tatts was entitled to receive $451 million and interest as compensation, Tabcorp’s claim for $686m had failed.
In handing down his judgement Justice Hargrave, however, said that he accepted that the outcome for Tabcorp was "manifestly unfair and unreasonable" and said it was "an unfortunate case of the harsh reality of sovereign risk".
In 2008 the Brumby government devised a 'clever' plan to try to avoid either renewing the gaming licences or reimbursing the two companies the $1.3 billion or so that they and their shareholders believed their contracts with the government entitled to them if the licences were awarded to third parties.
Instead of putting the licences up for a tender, the government created a new industry structure. This is because under a tender, the incumbents would have been heavily favoured to retain their licences in a process which, because of the nature of their contracts, would inevitably have produced only modest proceeds for the state.
The new structure offered entitlements to gaming machines to pubs and clubs instead, arguing that because the licences were neither renewed nor awarded to third parties, there was no legal obligation to pay the companies compensation.
The auction of those entitlements raised about $980m, about $3bn less than they were worth, according to the Victorian auditor-general.
Now, thanks to Tatts’ victory, the net proceeds from Labor’s trickery will be at least halved. Tabcorp may yet appeal the outcome of its case.
As Justice Hargrave said, the outcome is unfair and unreasonable and a very clear demonstration of sovereign risk. Australian state governments are expected to honour their obligations, not to use their legislative powers to circumvent them.
The compensation arrangements were detailed in the prospectus for the float of Tabcorp in 1994, a provision that was included to maximise the proceeds to the state government by ensuring Tabcorp didn’t have to amortise the value of licence fee through its profit and loss statements,which would have more than halved its reported earnings and the float proceeds. Tabcorp also held an indemnity from the state for any loss suffered as a result of a future change in its legislation.
The outcome and the disparity of the experience of Tabcorp shareholders (who paid for that compensation provision) and that of the Tatts shareholders leaves a lasting stain on the reputation of the Victorian government and leaves the Napthine government with the unpleasant task of financing a payment approaching half a billion dollars that should have been made by its predecessors.