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.
Diary of our stinking Govt
@boris1gary wrote: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.
Opening post (shortened) - repeated again (twice today now!)
Christopher Pyne reform push ‘is chronically unfair
The Australian
Political desperation to do a deal on university fee deregulation combined with systemically flawed funding arrangements would result in a chronically unfair situation of some students massively subsidising others, leading vice-chancellors say.
Those students would also be saddled with subsidising the country’s chronically underfunded research efforts. “The current policy process has played through to stalemate (in the Senate). It leaves unresolved the big questions about higher education and its funding,” writes Glyn Davis, head of the University of Me lbourne, in The Australian today.
The government’s higher education reform package has twice been rejected by the Senate. Education Minister Christopher Pyne has repeatedly said universities would be free to use additional revenues from fee deregulation in any way they saw fit, including funding research activity, but Professor Davis argues that existing funding arrangements for teaching subsidies, known as cluster funding, are irrational after years of policy tweaking.
He also argues that attempts to redress the independent senators’ concerns over excessive fee hikes would exacerbate the “irrationality” of the current situation.
“Since deregulation in its current form is not acceptable to the Senate, we need a way to evaluate the more complex alternatives on offer,” he writes.
The government is understood to be considering proposals by economists Bruce Chapman and David Phillips and another proposal by Victoria University head Peter Dawkins to progressively remove government teaching subsidies, or impose a sliding tax or levy, the higher fees rise.
This would limit the extent of fee rises but disproportionately affect Group of 8 universities that need higher fees to cross-subsidise their research efforts. Peter Hoj, head of the University of Queensland, said proposals such as Chapman’s would be “unfair” to students who chose Go8 universities who would find themselves not just funding more of the nation’s research efforts via their fees but also students at other universities. “It looks totally unfair to me. What signal are we sending to some of the country’s best students,” Professor Hoj said.
Yesterday, Mr Pyne’s office confirmed the Chapman proposal was under consideration.
David Phillips, who along with Professor Chapman devised the sliding tax, said the levy was only ever meant to be a “tweak” to what he believes was a flawed package overall. “It was only ever intended to address problems in one part of the package. It was never of itself a comprehensive reform. It was an improvement to a package that in my view was still flawed,” he said.
Mr Phillips said while a levy could address concerns about the potential for excessive prices in a deregulated market, the market design of the package remained flawed. Professor Chapman said it made sense to allow different universities to charge different fees but he strongly believed that unfettered fee deregulation was a recipe for disaster. “I’ve always thought it is unreasonable to give these quasi-private institutions — because that’s what universities are if they have the power to charge whatever price they like — the luxury of HECS, which would make considerable price rises inevitable.”
Professor Davis argues that that underlying assumption is wrong. “These proposals rest on the same idea; deregulation will only be acceptable if constrained. Whether fees are limited by regulation or held down by complex, subtle mechanisms, universities apparently cannot be trusted with setting prices,” he writes.
His boss, Rupert Murdoch, is not running its flagship paper, The Australian, for the tax losses it generates. He's doing it for Australia. 
"With due respect, I don't expect you to agree with this, but I consider The Australian to be the finest national newspaper operating in Australia," he said in reply to a question from Senator Milne.
Milne: We are not agreed.
Clarke: You are in a minority.
Milne: Not according to your sales.
Clarke was then asked if our 'finest national paper' actually had any direct competitors. He admitted "no there isn't. But if The Australian wasn't there, there'd be no one doing what we're doing."
Milne: Precisely.
I expect we'll see a few front page articles attacking the greens in the next couple of weeks
