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.
Something must be wrong with the Internet, judging by the "can't find bleats e.g.
"I can't find any reference to those exceptions at all in the link AM and would also like to see where that comes from"
"Link as to the source of that statement required, otherwise it could have come from The Daily Telegraph for all we know"
Hints as to searching: Copyright---------Legal---------Law (tort)----------Statutes----------Acts---------SEARCH
Start here
COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 41A
Fair dealing for purpose of parody or satire
I forgot, that is an Australian "Act"
First test, find the social media agreements users accept apropos abandonment of material copyright.
umm. 1968.. I'm pretty sure the copyright act has been updated since then 
so I'm not even going to look
why won't you just post a relevent link?
Hasn't found anything, just chipping in like a parrot.
Is mm claiming his post was satire or a parody?
it was neither, it was a phillipino bakery business logo
