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.
oh hi Julia
here's another reminder of what he actually said- which was incorrect
Prime Minister Tony Abbott says Australia will take more refugees from Syria in response to the growing international crisis but it will not increase the total number of asylum seekers it accepts.
He says Australia is already doing a lot when it comes to accepting asylum seekers, and that "we take more refugees than any other through the UNHCR on a per capita basis."
But is that statement correct?
No.
so I guess he was incorrect, however the whole article is worth a read
thanks but your link to the refugee council
of australia was what i was after. which you
have kindly provided. that was really all i wanted
to read on this particular issue. 
@debra9275 wrote:http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/latest/how-generous-is-australias-response-to-refugees/
thank you!!! 
no wonder i couldn't find it, the info was
in brackets towards the end of the article:
(third overall and first on a per capita basis and relative to total national GDP)
so abbott was not making it up.
"but you also recently said
but fail to see how a ship permanently operating within Australian coastal waters under the proposed amendments would choose to register abroad.
so I hope you understand that better now too
I see the cruise operater is still waiting for an apology after being called a liar
So who called the operator a liar? IF they did, they could always say:"
"minor error on my part"
"I did have that the wrong way around"
I have written: "but fail to see how a ship permanently operating within Australian coastal waters under the proposed amendments would choose to register abroad."
so I hope you understand that better now too
And I still do. If you had researched both what the operator has said, and the legislation covering domestic in-shore shipping operations you might (?) have noticed that the operator has mentioned that he would, under the supposed suggested crewing, have to carry 2 senior Australian mariners. This being the case, it would mean that the vessel would be operating over the 183 day limit ,and thus be required to pay ALL his crew the same rates of pay and be accorded the same work conditions as Australian based maritime crews.
"In addition to the employment of two senior Australian crew, all crew on foreign vessels that engage in more than 183 days of coastal trade in a permit year must be paid those wages and conditions set out in Part B of the Seagoing Industry Award 2010 for the entire permit period. This recognises that foreign ships engaged primarily in domestic trade should be subject to domestic workplace relations arrangements."
The real basis for the operators "noise is not wanting competition.
However, if you remember legislative procedures you will realise that any amendments will need to "sail" through both ports (Houses) to be enacted !
Politics sans research is for the
Right ! Day charter vessels wandering about Port Phillip Bay.
"and of course the businesses would be cheaper to run if they re-reg overseas and had foreign workers.... They would not do that ..
so,you are condoning a business using cheap foreign labour to compete with businesses that try to keep Australians in employment?"
I almost give up!
This debate is supposedly about the proposed amendments to the Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012. and coastal trading licenced vessels. Not relatively small Australian vessels operating in Enclosed Waters waters (Port Phillip Bay)
The Act defines the term coastal trading. This definition applies to ships engaged in voyages of a commercial nature carrying passengers or cargo, and covers essentially:
Voyages between a port in one state (or territory) and a port in another state (or territory);
Voyages between two or more ports in the same state (or territory), followed by trips to one or more states (or territories).
Read the current, and proposed legislation (as amended)
“The fleet of major Australian registered ships, ( over 2,000 dead weight tonnes) with coastal licences is in sharp decline, plummeting from 30 vessels in 2006–07 to just 15 in 2013–14.
D9275: "Every cruise MUST have an engineer on board and it has absolutely nothing to do with how many days of the year that they are in operation.
Wrong. I suggest you peruse the proposed legislation :
"In recognition of the significance of retaining critical Australian maritime skills, any vessel that undertakes more than 183 days of coastal trading in a permit period will be required to have two senior Australian crew on board the vessel for the entire permit period. The two Australian crew must be:
The master or chief mate; and
The chief engineer or first engineer.
I think the Port Phillip Bay Enclosed Waters day charters are "safe", anyway, the current legislation is that passed by the ALP.
Oh dear, I have a foreign breed ship's dog for my trips round the Bay.
