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 suggest you read this then comment
"We don't want to hire a foreign crew for an Australian operation that takes international and Australian tourists to iconic locations in Australia."
The legislation before parliament will no longer require foreign ships to pay Australian wages between domestic ports for the first 183 days.
the reason it was suggested to him to re -register his ships/business in a foreign country 
i suggest you read this then comment
"We don't want to hire a foreign crew for an Australian operation that takes international and Australian tourists to iconic locations in Australia."
The legislation before parliament will no longer require foreign ships to pay Australian wages between domestic ports for the first 183 days.
That comment is at the very least Disingenuous because only one day's trading after the 183 days and ALL the difference in wages for the WHOLE 183 days must then be paid to the crew.
Why not read the legislation rather than media (biased?) stories? it is quite plain.
Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
A Bill for an Act to amend various Acts relating to shipping, and for other purposes
The relevant section is :
Coastal shipping Schedule 1
Main amendments Part 1 sub section (2) (a) (b) and (3) (a) (b) "Parity Condition"
I would post the sub paragraphs but they are quite technical, so here is a simple explanation"
"In addition to the employment of two senior Australian crew, all crew on foreign vessels that engage in more than 183 days of coastal trade in a permit year must be paid those wages and conditions set out in Part B of the Seagoing Industry Award 2010 for the entire permit period"
I do urge you to read the actual legislation, because what Bilby is allegedly saying is nonsense, in that if you have a look at his cruise schedule for 2015 and 2016, his vessel is easily operating/present within Australian waters for over 183 days in each year. This means that if he had a foreign crew he would have to pay them Australian wages for the whole period they were crewing.
Perhaps he should read the proposed legislation as well !
"and here is another 'shipping' story"
So it is, and what do you understand after reading it?
A tanker vessel that used to be engaged in Australian coastal shipping of petroleum products became redundant when the Kernel refinery closed. It has now been reflagged OS and carries a foreign crew. It now transports petroleum products from OVERSEAS and delivers them to Australian ports among others. All of which is covered and is perfectly legal under the ALP's COASTAL TRADING (REVITALISING AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING) ACT 2012. Not that overseas shipping is considered costal shipping
The critics and the Maritime Union would not appear to understand the past and proposed legislation, or indeed what "enacted" means.
But critics, including the Maritime Union, have pointed to a succession of Australian-based ships switching crews ahead of the government's coastal shipping reforms being enacted.
"right!
so you're saying that the govt, have misinterpreted their own laws by giving him that advice and that the cruise company are talking 'nonsense' . perhaps you'd better contact Warren Truss to let him in know that everyone elses intrepretation is wrong?
"Everyone else is wrong?" just a few I have noticed, those that have not read the appropriate legislation.
the north star submission to the senate is online" That is nice, but it stems from a source with a pecuniary interest, and I suspect political, that also "fails" to comprehend the draft legislation !.
I am saying that, as reported, what Biby says is nonsense, but I do consider politically motivated, because he currently operates over 183 days a year in Australian waters and this would mean that he WOULD HAVE TO PAY Australian wages (with workplace conditions as well) for the WHOLE of the Permit period which includes the 183 days even if he had a foreign crew.
I suggest you read the draft amendments proposal, the published North Star itinerary for 2015 and 2016, and IF you do (??) also study the 2012 ALP : COASTAL TRADING (REVITALISING AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING) ACT 2012 (NO. 55, 2012)
Read the actual draft legislation, and also that which is currently in force.
