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.
Justice White ruled that the Heraldโs defence of qualified privilege failed because of malice behind the publication of the poster and tweets.
โI find that the respondents have not made out their claims of qualified privilege and even if they did, the defences would then be defeated in the case of the poster ... by the malice actuating.
"Justice White said he was satisfied that Mr Goodsirโs โanimusโ towards Mr Hockey had not abated by the time the articles were published and that their publication was โpredominantly actuated by that improper purposeโ.
"He said Mr Goodsirโs use of the expressions โour dirt on Hockeyโ and โthis one ainโt over yetโ were โparticularly revealingโ
Malice and aforethought ? Perhaps not in the classic mould here, but "malice" certainly would not exist uneasily herein where federal politicians are concerned
"Justice White appeared via video link from Adelaide. He said the damages were designed to console Mr Hockey for his hurt feelings and to "signal to the public the vindication of the applicant's reputation".
$200,000, and costs still to be apportioned, just because of a lack of common sense, impartiality, and tort law, by an editor with a grudge.
"Good-sir" give that man (Hockey) a $200,000 cigar, he deserves it !
"Poor Joe, I hope his hurt feelings are a little better now"
$200,000, and costs still to be apportioned, oh gosh that really hurts!
I do wonder if "poor" Fairfax's Goodsir's malice has been expurgated, or will it just be written off, as a headline !
"Well may he feel consoled although I'll be surprised if the "vindication" of his reputation is quite what he imagines."
And what exactly do you imagine that Hockey imagines, considering that the judge was alluding to the public's perception?
""though it is substantially less than the $1 million he was expecting"
Gosh, and how exactly does one determine what "he was expecting" ?
"he imagines", and "he was expecting", rather nebulous terms I would assert. Still a lot better than definitive statements that prove incorrect.
I think (not imagine) that Hockey succeeded in highlighting the malice shown by a not very bright Fairfax editor and some unaware Fairfax readers, who like Goodsir, are more likely to forgo pragmatism in favour of "malicious" comments.
So I repeat (not imagine) that the award:
$200,000, and costs still to be apportioned, just because of a lack of common sense, impartiality, and knowledge of tort law, by a Fairfax editor with a grudge, will (I imagine) be a nice little fillip for our Treasurer's bank account, in fact approximately 50% of his annual parliamentary salary and, I imagine, tax exempt!.
we were awarded costs when we won a case, but the court puts a figure on it and it was nowhere near our actual costs... though we won the case, we were substantially out of pocket.... not a shadow of the costs of the guy who lost though 
