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.
"he talks quite a lot about the water table in his twitter feed that I posted somewhere further back too"
That's nice, but nothing to do with this comment:
""Tony Windsor has spoken out and supported residents against this mine for a very long time"
So now you are "back", how about a reference to show that Windsor has actually been "against this mine for a very long time" (6 years will suffice)
http://www.webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2552/print dated 25/9/08 (one example) Codswallop
If you read the article you will find that it covers opposition to exploratory drilling based upon a need for independent water catchment studies.to be conducted before a mining licence is granted.
No mention of opposition by Windsor to the whole project, as has been stated. In fact G58 dug up a similar erroneous claim to opposition which only showed Windsor's concern for the aquifer not the whole project.
I would suggest some old links showing WINDSOR opposing the mine (from the start even) would be more compelling than what has been presented so far !
Actual Windsor comments showing his concern for water resources NOT opposition to the mine per se.
"one example" so there could be more ( valid I hope) so lets have an actual link to support the claim that Windsor has opposed the mine for a long while.
