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.
like the stunt they tried to pull claiming that 'labor doesn't support small business" 
"obviously you don't understand it again.... of course he needs to know ALL the details before agreeing to it
The SMH is quite right- the same was discussed on sky news this morning
it's a bit of a stunt abbott expecting agreement when he hasn't yet disclosed all the details"
I think there is still no concept of Parliamentary procedures. The time for detailed review of legislation commences after the 1st reading, and also within the 2nd reading, where if it is contentious it can be shuffled off to the Federation Chamber for the remainder of the second reading and a consideration in detail stage.
"of course he needs to know ALL the details before agreeing to it" (so why have two Houses/chambers?)
There is absolutely no obvious requirement for a Leader of the Opposition to agree with proposed legislation before the draft stage, that is what the various stages of making a law are for, RESEARCH. In fact if you read the link you might notice that there is normally a "pause" between the 1st and 2nd reading.:
The purpose of this pause in proceedings is to give Members time to study the bill and its effects before speaking and voting on it, and to provide the opportunity for public discussion and reaction.
"it's a bit of a stunt abbott expecting agreement when he hasn't yet disclosed all the detail"
Oh dear (who cares), there is no detail until the draft legislation, then there is due process in which any and all can view, consider, propose amendments, and then vote (agree or otherwise)
The only stunt is Harvey Shorten playing yet again (to the faithful) and the media, a hackneyed tune. That makes 3 last week.
However, I point out, as I have often done, both sides do it for their 
Triggs undermined her position when she "politicised" the role of the HRC with:
Triggs conceded that she had made a decision to hold the inquiry after the 2013 election:
And then has further reduced its standing with:
"But have we thought about what the consequences are of pushing people back to our neighbour Indonesia? Is it any wonder that Indonesia will not engage with us on other issues that we care about, like the death penalty?"
Somewhat removed from the purview of the AUSTRALIAN HRC, which basically is:
The Commission's goals are to foster greater understanding and protection of human rights in Australia
