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.
speaking of housing Bella, check these out 
The mystery owner of Australia's most famous trophy home, Altona in Sydney's Point Piper, is a Chinese property developer who concealed his investment behind an elderly Melbourne couple to avoid foreign investment laws.
Fairfax can reveal that businessman Wang Zhijun paid $52 million for the harbourside mansion through a complex holding structure of shelf companies and holding trusts, including opaque nominee arrangements stretching from the Melbourne suburb of Elwood to the British Virgin Islands.
I agree BA, it is a can of worms that neither side have been keen to address.
How about negative gearing on new properties only, but not retrospective, or negative gearing tax deductions only from losses associated with the property?
"The government voted against the bill, despite devoting a portion of question time this week urging Labor to pass the measure."
Doesn't anyone research or understand basic parliamentary procedures, or even acknowledge real politics? No.
"so why ARE the Libs stalling passing this Bill, it's been 22 days since they announced it and Labour has already committed to passing it"
A newly discovered Harvey Shorten actually attempted to pass a motion (?) not a bill (?) which he would have known had absolutely no chance of success, just like his marriage bill earlier in the week. It is called politics for the media (and MYOPS)
If one bothers to consider (?) anything that the "Reps" does can not proceed further whilst the Senate is adjourned and will remain so currently for a couple more weeks.
"The government’s chief parliamentary tactician, Christopher Pyne, said: “Labor are a joke. Ending the debate on small business won’t get the bills to the Senate any faster. The Senate isn’t in session.”
"so why ARE the Libs stalling passing this Bill, it's been 22 days since they announced it and Labour has already committed to passing it"
"is it to get more political milage out of and to accuse Labour of stalling it??"
That does not make sense
Simply put, Harvey Shorten is making a lot of hollow political noise for those unaware of the facts/procedures , it is working!
"It was a BILL to pass a motion to get through the HOR quickly and onto the senate". What absolute codswallop
Really, a BILL? you will have to explain that. You could start with the draft of the "Bill" you refer to.
A bill, which is a formal document prepared in the form of a draft Act, is no more than a proposal for a law or a change to the law.
It was not a bill
A motion is a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind
It is not a bill
A political stunt for those who seem unable to appreciate parliamentary procedures, and the fact that there is actually no hurry because the legislation must be approved by the Senate, which does not sit until the 15 June.
I suppose you could write that it was Bill trying to pass a motion !
Chuckle
it was clever though, abbott can't play games with them over it any more 
"it was a motion to pass the Bill through the HOR, the LNP voted against passing their Bill"
Wrong again, the vote was against the MOTION, not the BILL,
"it was clever though, abbott can't play games with them over it any more "
The only GAMES were from Shorten, because it was immaterial whether the Bill had an accelerated first, second, and third reading and passed, because the bill must then proceed to the Senate to be passed there and become an Act.
The Senate will not be sitting till the 15th June.
So we have Harvey Shorten media starring for the MYOPS and demanding immediate consideration of a BILL that if and when it was passed, would then languish for almost a couple of weeks in the Senate "in-tray".
So "It was a BILL to pass a motion to get through the HOR quickly and onto the senate" , now becomes: "It was a MOTION to pass a BILL to get through the HOR quickly and onto the senate"
Almost there! Actually It was a motion to allow immediate consideration of the BILL(not pass it), Whether it proceeded quickly to the then DORMANT Senate would depend on any subsequent debate and vote of the "Reps"
Simply put: A lot of political hot air over something that was not only irrelevant apropos timing, but procedurally was never going to occur.
Hand feeding the 
They bit!
however, shorten beat them at their own political game and has gone up a notch in my estimation for doing so ( not only mine it seems) 
why do we need 30 LNP politicians to debate ( or pat themselves on the back) over this bill.... the opposition has already said they will pass it
@debra9275 wrote:
it was clever though, abbott can't play games with them over it any more
btw monman12 your post claiming that 80% of Australians own their own home is wrong, some more research is required on that
"however, shorten beat them at their own political game " CHUCKLE
By proposing a motion that was bound to fail, in a much publicised attempt to rush through a bill that would then remain dormant for a couple of weeks, and which the government had already said they would pass this week.
It is called political grandstanding, same as Shorten's marriage Bill earlier this week, which also had no chance whatsoever of proceeding. That makes 2 failures out of 2 hollow attempts, lots of pink noise though to "notch up" the MYOPS
" btw monman12 your post claiming that 80% of Australians own their own home is wrong, some more research is required on that"
Really? There seems to be a problem with interpreting, because what I ACTUALLY wrote was
"........... and looking at the 80% of the electorate:
Considering that currently a little under 70% of all occupied private dwellings are either owned outright or owned with a mortgage I would assert that was acceptable mathematics.
PS.
4 Jun 2015 - 3:30 AM
The Abbott government's small business package has passed the House of Representatives.
Harvey Shorten would best return to lay-by !
