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.
Mr Ronalds also said the charity was seeking compensation over the treatment of Save The Children workers who were accused, but later cleared by the Moss inquiry of facilitating protests on the island.
Mr Moss reviewed intelligence reports and interviews from Wilson Security, the security provider at the centre. He said none of the information indicated conclusively that Save the Children staff had engaged in those activities.
He acknowledged there was still an Australian Federal Police investigation into the case, but he has recommended the Immigration Department review its decision to remove the staff from the island anyway.
"none of the information indicated conclusively " I do love qualifications
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?
Is it appropriate for a current sitting member of Parliament to undertake public speaking engagements for private recompense in money?............. "private recompense in money," gosh!
Google is working and Codes of Conduct would be a good place to start! However I am interested in the details involved apropos the "currently serving government member" (a "he" I gather?) and the actual monies involved.
what is inappropriate?
I think google is still working- I suggest you look it up
I would suggest D9275 that looking up a supposed event that seemingly has not occured would be formidable. So as you indicate that you have further and better particulars apropos "a currently serving government member going about taking money in exchange for his public speaking engagements?
Please, the member, the event and the monies involved for the "inappropriate"behaviour.
"If Labor does manage to fluke a win at the next election,I hope they call an extensive inquiry into just what has been happening on Nauru and Manus Island.There's no hope of that occurring under Truffles Turnbull. "
At least the ALP will have a lot of inside information already, considering they restarted the Pacific Solution in the days of the Circus
"In 2012, the government commissioned the Houston Report to provide advice on the issue of IMAs. It handed down 22 recommendations, including the immediate reopening of immigration detention facilities on Manus Island and Nauru, which the government implemented with bipartisan support."
"On 19 July 2013 Rudd, .......declared "From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees."
I am somewhat curious M1C as to how you would proceed with "an extensive inquiry" considering there are 2 sovereign nations concerned, and also NGOs running the camps?
Again I will point out that this is a topic that is mainly driven by political outlook/agenda, (mainstream and here) not apparently by any genuine compassion for the plight of refugees.
Attorney-General George Brandis has hit out at criticism of Tony Abbott's religious beliefs, describing the "ridicule" to which the former prime minister was subjected as "bigotry at its most shameless"
Last year, the Attorney-General defended Mr Abbott's government's proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act.
"In a free country people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigoted," he had said
now i find that to be kind of funny
