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.
"The Guardian reports that Abbott told reporters in Queensland that the Coalition are the only government strong enough to stop the boats, and that any other government – wait for it – would “succumb to the cries of the human rights lawyers”.
Oh gosh The Guardian., would that be the same Guardian that reported in 2014 (acceptable history) that " Leading human rights lawyer says holding 153 Sri Lankan asylum seekers at sea ‘looks for all the world like piracy’
The lawyer, Burnside, and the paper appeared then to be unaware of basic maritime law then, so the mind boggles as to what the ALP would accept from him if they were in power.
New legal terminology perhaps: "looks for all the world like " ----------------
Chuckle
He certainly did not appear to know what the legal definition of Piracy was G58, research it.
Please allow me to guide you, Burnside, and the Guardian
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
Finally:
Ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall, on the high seas, have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.
You don't think Burnside was playing politics and using a term (incorrectly) because he assumed many would have no idea as to its definition, as was well demonstrated here back when this topic was being discussed. No really he wouldn't, would he?
Chuckle
