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.
who said it was against the law? That's just plain silly
ABC
Bill Shorten won't comment on whether authorities paid people smugglers in Indonesia when Labor was in power.
Money well spent on land or at sea by both sides.
"who said it was against the law? That's just plain silly" Well firstly no one has, and secondly you Kudoed this poster for:
JCC: "So, is it appropriate (is it even against the law?) for a currently serving government member to go about taking money in exchange for his public speaking engagements?
That is what I was intimating, but JCC is "vanished" and my question remains unanswered, However this intrigues me : "It is inappropriate though" what is inappropriate?
Well firstly no one has, and secondly you Kudoed this poster for:
JCC: "So, is it appropriate (is it even against the law?) for a currently serving government member to go about taking money in exchange for his public speaking engagements?
no I didn't
I gave kudos to the post because it was generally a good post
JCC: "So, is it appropriate (is it even against the law?) for a currently serving government member to go about taking money in exchange for his public speaking engagements?
You Kudoed this poster for the post containing the above:
"no I didn't .....I gave kudos to the post because it was generally a good post". Nonsense, it was unresearched politically biased twaddle.
Anyway, the excerpt above is excluded from a Kudos? Perhaps it could be covered by: "Really it's the job of the journo (poster perhaps?) to research what they're putting to print, that responsibility doesn't lie with people reposting their articles on a chat board"
"paying people smugglers to transport people is illegal"
I am interested in your legal reference, media C&Ps are unreliable, Note the difference between "aids" and transporting below. I would also add, that if (your opinion or C&Ps?) there is prima facie an offence, why has it not been pursued, who would you suggest exercises the rule of law?
A 73.3A offence requires that the payment "aids" the offence of people smuggling, which means organising or facilitating the unauthorised entry of people into a country.
I did suggest a little thought would be needed, so read Section 73.3A
