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.
it was from weeks ago too wasn't it Am? I can't remember when it was exactly.. but it is kind of weird people going back over older posts, just like they do with archived political articles 
at least it was this year I suppose 
shame the article about ordering more boats from Vietnam wasn't remembered with the same enthusiasm 
Yes, was awhile ago.. not an issue at the time, not an issue now.
"so what?? who are you to judge. All I did was post an article from Jakarta post that had been printed, I did not personally write the article, nor do I live in Indonesia. Do you??"
I can, and do, certainly judge what is posted here, also what it is linked to. The "defence" of "someone else wrote it' is an indication that a C&P article is not understood, not researched, or fits in with a particular bias. Often all 3.
Seriously, who in their right mind would accept this statement without reservations, :
"We don't know for sure what happened, but that's what they say",
I don't expect the silly statement of 3 days on Christmas Island to mean anything (then), have you researched it now? and the applicable migration protocols/law for refugees landing on excised territory, because even Burnside appears confused when it comes to refugees and piracy.
As to judging, I think these comments sum up my judgement of many of the posts herein.:'
"It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived."
Rene Descartes
"The first precept was never to accept a thing as true until I knew it as such without a single doubt."
Rene Descartes
"btw have you researched yet who called for the inquiry into large corporate tax evasion. You didn't ssem to have any knowledge of it the other day"
I Could not find that Senate Inquiry anywhere, would this suffice as it is the only one "running" at the moment:
"An inquiry into tax avoidance and aggressive minimisation by corporations registered in Australia and multinational corporations operating in Australia.
I know law is a problem, but "tax evasion" is illegal and the Inquiry is about avoidance. Probably why I have no knowledge of a "fictitious" inquiry, and "research" could not produce it !
I always try and reproduce bloopers (like above)" so where is mine?
