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.
These Big 4 'symbols' are presently unfettered by our Govt.
Hopefully things are about to change?
...." If the inquiry fulfils its current promise it will be bad news for the larger, vertically-integrated institutions that have profited so handsom...
It will be good news for everybody else, including competitors, consumers and taxpayers."
"There is something vey inconsistent about holding a Royal Commission into union corruption while legislating to allow the return of corruption in financial advice"
Interesting quote from nearly 6 months ago ( before the Interim Murray report) but for some strange reason (????), a subsequent paragraph of Kohler's was omitted
"Mind you, it was just as inconsistent for the previous Labor Government to crack down on financial advice while abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and removing laws that control union behavior".
I know, you didn't see it!
"These Big 4 'symbols' are presently unfettered by our Govt."
I guess like science, economic awareness is also not some peoples forté, try researching APRA, ASIC, and how to post smaller images!
"it will be bad news for the larger, vertically-integrated institutions that have profited so handsom..." Repeat of above, plus: there is a distinct difference between banking (mainstay) and the banks financial planning arms.
Those that have profited are the many hundreds of thousands of shareholders of the banks (I hold shares in all the "big 4")
I think I will now dig up a C&P from Kohler that is current, and relevant, regarding the interim Murray report.
nɥºɾ
......funny how some things appear to remain 'small' no matter the amount of money thrown at it to try and make it bigger or more important LOL
I promised an up-to-date article apropos the Murray (Interim) Report, so here it is complete, sans selected politically favoured excerpts!
Small photograph, current issue, C&P, but an article rom a real journalist with no tinted lenses and not via an "independent" red flagged outlet. 2 CAPIKs ? (cut and paste independent kudos) or 3?
Murray is damning on how consumers are treated
Looking through the mists of caution necessary in an interim report, the Financial System Inquiry’s first effort is a damning assessment of how the financial system works for consumers.
And that's especially interesting at the moment coming from a former managing director of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, David Murray.
Two observations stand out: that the current disclosure regime for financial products doesn't work and the retirement phase of superannuation “does not meet the risk management needs of many retirees”.
Until Labor’s Future of Financial Advice legislation, which the Coalition is now partially dismantling, Australia’s financial services regulation was based entirely on disclosure.
But as the FSI interim report observes, that has resulted in complex and lengthy documents that don’t help consumers understand anything, and impose significant costs on the industry. In other words it’s a total failure and hasn't helped anyone.
“Over the past decade, industry and government have made efforts to improve the quality of disclosure documents. However, a culture of legal compliance, rather than a focus on how best to inform consumers, continues to influence the design of disclosure documents.”
The interim report then goes on to torpedo the government’s opposition to FoFA and thrust of its amendments to it.
Immediately after observing that the disclosure regime is too complex and costly, the report says that consumers need access to good advice. The implication is that this is the alternative -- the key to overcoming the failures of the disclosure regime.
But: “Many consumers consider that their advice needs are currently unmet.”
Why? Because of “varying standards of advisor competence” and “the impact on conflicted remuneration structures”.
It concludes: “At times, consumers also lack access to affordable advice. In addition, some submissions question whether general advice is properly labelled and whether consumers understand its nature, given general advice often includes sales and advertising information.”
There it is. The Murray inquiry is, in effect, supporting the FoFA legislation without directly saying so - yet.
In the section on retirement the interim report is even clearer. It observes that the framework designed to help Australia’s save for retirement -- the superannuation guarantee system, including defaults for those who don’t engage with it -- “ceases at retirement”.
Retirees then make critical once-a-lifetime decisions regarding when and how to drawn down their savings, and how to manage all the risks involved, such inflation and longevity.
It says: “Many retirees are unprepared for these decisions.”
The inquiry’s members clearly lean towards some form of compulsory pension.
“Australia is unusual in not encouraging its citizens to use income streams with longevity protection in retirement.”
The problem is that there are a number of regulatory barriers in the way of this.
Most of the observations in the interim report are “motherhood” statements, but the ones about how Australians are treated in saving for retirement and what happens once they get there are pointed and sharp.
Let’s hope they survive into the final recommendations, and then the government takes some notice of them.
nɥºɾ
