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 wonder how many boxes of Montecristo Hockey will buy with the "donation" from Fairfax ?
He can indulge in a puff or two before that imminent election, which supposedly is lurking nearby.
I'm so glad you brought that up..... this was his partial win however his case against fairfax, the article and the headline were dismissed
with $200, 000 he might buy himself a few cuban cigars 
though it is substantially less than the $1 million he was expecting
@gleee58 wrote:Amazing how he can be defamed by the truth.
glad you're not a judge 
Justice Richard White found that a poster headline and tweets reading "Treasurer for sale" were defamatory.
Mr Hockey was awarded $200,000 in damages.
Glee, check these out kind of funny really that it's all been done before ,except for the defamation case
where are the grown ups??
Your C&P D9275 makes (albeit unknowingly) the case for Hockey, which was also part of Justice White's judgement, in that Hockey's secondary argument was that the tweet and the newspaper boards headline were disassociated from the article, which was not defamatory,.
However in your C&P it indicates that 279,000 could have only read the tweet (seen the boards) and not having read the article, formed an opinion based upon the judged to be defamatory headline material.
Simply put, the tweet/newsboard were judged defamatory because they were separate (defamatory) publications from the main article.
Unlike you to "make" a case for Hockey !
"though it is substantially less than the $1 million he was expecting"
"he was expecting" really? Gosh, and how would that unsupported comment be arrived at, other than speculation?
"He is claiming damages, including aggravated damages, interest and costs, although the amount of damages is not specified."
Mr Hockey's lawyers point in their written submissions to "comparable" damages awards in recent cases under the new laws, the highest of which is $350,000.
Mr McClintock said Fairfax should also pay extra damages for "aggravating the hurt" to Mr Hockey by continuing a "smear campaign" against him through the way it conducted its case in court.
Lawyers for Treasurer Joe Hockey have told the Federal Court that if he wins his defamation case against Fairfax Media he should be entitled to damages at the top of the range - effectively as much as $1 million.
Under Australian defamation law, damages to an individual are capped at $366,000. However, as the SMH, The Age and The Canยญberra Times are being pursued under separate actions, they could each be liable for a maximum payout, aggravated damages and costs, which could theoretically tip Mr Hockeyโs compensation payout above $1m.
Definitive statements need to be supported, especially where the law is concerned, however, I will accept a reliable reference wherein it proves that Hockey " was expecting $1 million"
D9275: "this was his partial win however his case against fairfax, the article and the headline were dismissed"
WRONG
A three-word headline and two tweets have cost Fairfax Media $200,000 after Treasurer Joe Hockey successfully sued for defamation.
It was the headline that cost them $200,000
Like parliamentary procedures the course of law is well marked, and trodden.
