on โ20-04-2014 10:21 PM
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.
on โ05-02-2015 12:51 PM
@debra9275 wrote:
but.. what are they thinking???
They think they are above the rules and the laws.
on โ05-02-2015 12:53 PM
maybe they intended to change the law so they don't have to comply to it..... I know they've had other things to deal with lately, but they've had a very long time to lodge it
โ05-02-2015 02:16 PM - edited โ05-02-2015 02:17 PM
Weak defence. If the report was due before a certain date, then the only data used should be what was available prior to that date.
I have posted the whole article as it is paywalled.
Hockey defends โillegalโ Intergenerational Report delay
TREASURER Joe Hockey has defended his decision to delay publishing a significant government report, which Labor has branded a โflagrant breach of the lawโ.
The Charter of Budget Honesty Act, enacted by the Howard government in 1998, requires each Intergenerational Report to be released within five years of the previous edition. However it is now two days overdue.
โBasic processes are grinding to a halt as Coalition infighting and self-interest dogs the Abbott government,โ Labor treasury spokesman Chris Bowen said.
โThe Treasurer is obviously more interested in protecting his job than actually doing it.
โIt is simply unacceptable for the Treasurer to be in flagrant breach of the law.โ
Mr Hockey this morning pledged to release the report โaround the end of this monthโ.
โWe wanted to use the very latest data, particularly given that we had to write down revenue substantially in the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook released just before Christmas,โ Mr Hockey told reporters in Queanbeyan, outside Canberra.
โUsing the latest data gives us a better Intergenerational Report and thatโs what I want to do, carefully and methodically deliver credible documents and thatโs exactly what it will be.โ
Mr Hockey noted Labor released its 2010 Intergenerational Report early, suspecting political motives were at play. [Labor blame game, nothing to do with him not releasing the report on time]
Mr Bowen said a future Labor government would commission the independent Parliamentary Budget Office to produce the Intergenerational Report, eliminating โshort-term political considerations โฆ on either the timing or substance of these reportsโ.
The Abbott government is not alone in breaching legal deadlines for reports. For example, the NSW government is now 14 monthsโ overdue in releasing a statutory report dealing with the abuse of listening devices by police and prosecutors.
Asked about the NSW case last month, University of NSW public law professor George Williams said it was a โvery poor lookโ for the stateโs Attorney-General but doubted there would be any legal ramifications.
โItโs not likely to be an enforceable provision ... as a court would not normally make an order requiring the minister to fulfil such a requirement. In effect, it is not possible to force a review,โ Dr Williams told The Australian at the time.
โThis would leave the minister in breach, which is a very poor look for a person responsible for enforcing the laws.
โ05-02-2015 02:27 PM - edited โ05-02-2015 02:29 PM
Alan Moir
on โ05-02-2015 06:08 PM
on โ05-02-2015 06:13 PM
on โ05-02-2015 06:34 PM
โ05-02-2015 06:45 PM - edited โ05-02-2015 06:47 PM
I thought you might have taken it aboard by now I am not interested in what Labor or past Govts did or didn't do. I am interested in the current Govt and what they are up to.
This..... but Labor... but Labor.. Gillard blah... Rudd blah response to nearly every post about Abbott, is very tiresome.
When the Labor Govt was in power there were numerous threads about them discussing everything they did or didn't do... been there, done that.
More important issues re the current Govt to discuss/comment on/post about.
โ05-02-2015 06:56 PM - edited โ05-02-2015 06:57 PM
V300: Some parts of the economy are going gangbusters, flat out.
Sometimes V300 I think that it is only gangbusters for some when their "gimme gimme" is answered with pre election hand feeding .
Now in the current Govt's rose smelling world of real economics:
A dividend by any other name would smell as sweet.
nษฅยบษพ
on โ05-02-2015 07:01 PM