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.
there was another amendment in 2012, but I can't open the PDF file
1968
the world was a much different place back then 
@debra9275 wrote:nah... if we did that, anyone could make up anything and claim it be 'fact'
i'd rather continue on as we have been ( well;. most of us anyway)
Exactly why some have an aversions to links/sources provided.
"what's the 1936 tax law got to do with the current copyright laws - absolutely nothing"
To indicate to a reasonable person that an Act that is in use today might well have a "birthday" many years ago. e.g. our original tax ACT of 1936 is, with amendments, is still applicable today.
I chose the "tax act" because I thought that as we all "use"it, it might be understood, but on consideration of economics and investment expertise on show here (50cents pfffft) , bad choice.
Last attempt: The Copyright Act of 1968 is current and relevant, and " Includes amendments up to: Act No. 31, 2014
Perhaps under the forbidden history rule any "Acts" prior to Sept 2013 are being ignored , or can not be found (understood).
"Why waste time looking up a 1968 law (which wasn't even mentioned at first), when it was AMENDED in 2006? Answer that!"
Does nobody understand "Acts" as published and continually amended.
A3 et al if you bothered to check, a link is not required with an "Act" just use the original title and if you know, the sub topic.
This is a compilation of the Copyright Act 1968 as in force on 24 June 2014. It includes any commenced amendment affecting the legislation to that date.
This compilation was prepared on 24 June 2014.
AMENDED in 2006? Answer that!"
Give me strength A3 The 1968 Copyright Act that is in force today has been amended numerous times with the first major review occurring in 1974.
A3: How many business logo's were on the net, ready to be lifted for satire or parody in 1968?
When an Act is amended (by another Act) it is not rewritten , it is just "amended", in fact the 2006 amendment added the "satire or parody " exemption.
I'm sorry but whatever other spin you put on it... taxation may not be all that different to 1936 we still have taxation
but the copyright laws between 1968 and 2015 would be vastly different due to the fact that we did not have computers nor the
internet in 1968 
you posted not a shared altered parody,/satirical image from FB or twitter but a Phillipino bakery business's advertising logo
