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.
The prime minister said it was his understanding that Pell in his written statement had agreed to reappear, but it was “ultimately a matter for him” whether the cardinal returned to Australia.
Why is it Pell's decision? Let's face it, Pell is just a senior manager of a global money making organisation. If it were anyone else, the decision wouldn't be up to Pell, it would be up to the direction of the Royal Commission.
"My understanding is that A royal commission has the power to command that someone testify. Pell testifying by "letter" just doesn't seem right. I agree with you AB"
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 21/05/2015 LEIGH SALES interview Excerpts.
"The Royal commission can't compel Cardinal Pell to give evidence, but says it does want him to respond to the fresh allegations, as do victims groups."
FRANCES SULLIVAN: "Well I know that Cardinal Pell before he left Australia said to me, and I have communicated it to the Royal commission, that he will cooperate with Royal commission on any request, and if he can't personally be here, he will certainly be able to communicate in the public hearing by way of video, as we saw in Melbourne."
I see Harvey Shorten has (been) woken up, and sensing some cheap political mileage joined in.
For anyone interested in law they might ponder the ramifications of:
The Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2013 (the Bill) proposes amendments to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Royal Commissions Act) (don't fret over the 1902 part!)
Under the Royal Commissions Act a natural person is not excused from giving evidence on the grounds of self‑incrimination (section 6A), although evidence given to a Royal Commission is not admissible in evidence against the person in civil or criminal proceedings in any Australian court (section 6DD).
@monman12 wrote:"My understanding is that A royal commission has the power to command that someone testify. Pell testifying by "letter" just doesn't seem right. I agree with you AB"
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 21/05/2015 LEIGH SALES interview Excerpts.
"The Royal commission can't compel Cardinal Pell to give evidence, but says it does want him to respond to the fresh allegations, as do victims groups."
FRANCES SULLIVAN: "Well I know that Cardinal Pell before he left Australia said to me, and I have communicated it to the Royal commission, that he will cooperate with Royal commission on any request, and if he can't personally be here, he will certainly be able to communicate in the public hearing by way of video, as we saw in Melbourne."
I see Harvey Shorten has (been) woken up, and sensing some cheap political mileage joined in.
For anyone interested in law they might ponder the ramifications of:
The Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2013 (the Bill) proposes amendments to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Royal Commissions Act) (don't fret over the 1902 part!)
Under the Royal Commissions Act a natural person is not excused from giving evidence on the grounds of self‑incrimination (section 6A), although evidence given to a Royal Commission is not admissible in evidence against the person in civil or criminal proceedings in any Australian court (section 6DD).
Why the dig at Bill Shorten. Any person with empathy would also want Pell to front the Commission in person. It is the morally right thing to do. I've yet to hear anyone other than apologists for Pell state that it is not a requirement therefore he shouldn't have to.
