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.
" I read somewhere that it was all Labors fault because they used the term 'competitive evaluation process' back in 2003 over something.
Shame I can't find the article now but" ????
Somewhere, something, I can't find the article. Not a compelling argument
Handbook of Cost-Benefi t Analysis January 2006
Department of Finance and Administration Financial Management Group
Updated January 2006. This publication replaces the Handbook of Cost-Benefit Anlaysis, 1991,
Undertaking a cost-benefit analysis provides the decision maker with quantitative comparisons of options, together with supporting information for any costs and benefits that could not be quantified. Cost-benefit analyses serve to aid decision-making. However,
a cost-benefit analysis does not replace the need for sound judgment based on a wide range of considerations, and in accordance with the various obligations officials face......"
From another Govt document 2007:
'When undertaking a procurement, agencies need to conduct an appropriately competitive
process of a scale commensurate with the size and risk profile of the particular procurement.
How about this:
"The decision to purchase new aircraft raised two major questions: what to purchase and how much to pay. Initially, in June 2002. the (Australian) Government set up a competitive evaluation process to examine its options.
You will "love" this one (?????)
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR THE DISPOSAL OF: ROYAL AUSTRALIAN SHIPS AND EX-HMAS MANOORA
i.e. SINK THEM. Very much a submarine type activity !!!! Anyway, within the paperwork (2011) is this:
These following criteria (not in any order of importance) may be used to establish the disposal options open to the Commonwealth but will NOT be used to assess individual responses for subsequent RFT activity. This RFP is not subject to a competitive evaluation process.
So why are there so many headless chooks blundering around indicating that they have no idea what the term competitive evaluation process. means? when it has been in use for a fair time, and I would assert, is self explanatory.
Sorry about the history parts A3 !
monman please stop referring to my ID in your posts, unless you are quoting mine. I have no input into what you post, nor am I interested what you post or not. I don't want my ID unnecessarily associated with the content of your posts
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So why are there so many headless chooks blundering around indicating that they have no idea what the term competitive evaluation process. means? when it has been in use for a fair time, and I would assert, is self explanatory.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
THIS IS WHY
1. Monday this week - Tony Abbott, PM promised the SA Senator that ASC would be able to 'tender' for the subs -- so why didn't he know that was not the process goiing to be used... instead it is the competitive evaluation process
South Australian Senator Sean Edwards, who chaired that inquiry, said his support for the embattled Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Monday’s leadership spill motion was contingent on getting an open tender, which would include an ASC bid.
He said Mr Abbott called him on Sunday, on the eve of the leadership spill, and promised there would be an open tender. The Government has not ruled out Mr Abbott used that word.
2. Yesterday -"Defence Minister Kevin Andrews announced there would be a “competitive evaluation process” but was unable to explain what that would mean and how exactly it was different from a tender process, except to say that a tender process had “a very specific meaning”.
These two doofus above are the ones 'confused' about 'competitive evaluation process"and they should not be considering the positions they hold! The Defence Minister can't explain what a 'competitive evaluation process '! Mind you he is just a stooge so TA can control Defence.
Forget history when you have these in charge right now! one of the country and the other of Defence!
The chief blundering headless chook is Kevin Andrews.. the other idjit is Tony Abbott ( 6 MP's & 1 Minister of Defence had to rush to SA by air to try and fix his stuff up - false promise of a tender process).
What a pickle! Abbott shouldn't have promised an open tender (not in the policy) just to try get himself of the hook re leadership issue and the Minister of Defence should know what he is talking about...
I don't think Labor had any input into the above!
All on day 1 of Good Government... Read my bubbles, indeed.
