Diary of our stinking Govt.

[boris1gary]

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.

[gleee58]

According to Hinch, and others, she provided the required proof.

[monman12]

paintsew007 wrote:

IMHO Sir Peter Cosgrove, our Governor-General has a DUTY to dismiss Tony Abbott.

The correct title for our Govenor General is: 

His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd)

Otherwise he could be referred to  as General Sir Peter Gosgrove. 

Becoming a general indicates many years of service rather than a whim (?) of a PM,  or in the past when a knighthood could be purchased or dished out to political/business mates.

As for the nonsensical suggestion the GG has a duty to dismiss Abbott:

There are some powers which the Governor-General may, in certain circumstances, exercise without – or contrary to – ministerial advice. These are known as the reserve powers. While the reserve powers are not codified as such, they are generally agreed to at least include: 

1. The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’; 
2. The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament; 
3. The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully; and 
4. The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister..

I refer you to 2, and the "numbers" within the Reps.

Regardless of the above the prime minister recommends who will be the GG and can also require their  dismissal resulting in:

Professor Anne Twomey

"Hence, in a race to the Palace, a Prime Minister’s advice to dismiss the Governor-General will not be successful if the Governor-General has first managed to dismiss the Prime Minister.

[cherry*135]

[cherry*135]

The Australian

Tony Abbott's speech reflective, lacking in vision

...Abbott is right when he highlights changing Prime Minister’s can cost a government its credibility. The removal of Kevin Rudd did just that. But leadership transitions can also be done successfully, history is littered with such examples.

Abbott over-reached when telling his audience that removing a Prime Minister is the preserve of the public come election time.

Party room colleagues who take pride in their right to cast a vote for or against a leader won’t have liked hearing such an arrogant observation from Abbott, who they already believe takes them for granted.

The right of party MPs to choose their leader is what makes a Prime Minister a first among equals. John Howard always respected this. It is how MPs can ensure a leader listens.

While Abbott used his speech to (again) promise to consult and listen more, the obvious disdain Abbott showed for his colleagues right to remove him suggests that he won’t.

What Abbott didn’t do today was mount a case for why he is the best person to pull the government out of its quagmire.

I heard no narrative for improved consultation with the cross benchers, no way in which the budget problems might be better tackled or sold, no planned approach to arrest the decline in the polls or the collapse in Abbott’s personal support.

And there was little by way of forward-looking vision. Most of the speech looked backwards, referencing successes already achieved.

Then why is he in such a diabolical position?

[cherry*135]

ABC

Abbott speech:

Those who cast this speech as "make or break" were always setting Mr Abbott up to fail and it is telling that some contacted the ABC to critique it before he opened his mouth.

Minutes before he got to his feet the ABC received a message on his decision to dump the paid parental leave scheme, something most of them have been demanding for five years.

"Another backflip on another captain's pick without consulting the backbench," the MP's message said. "Nothing has changed."

So those MPs who want the Prime Minister gone are no longer even prepared to hear him out.

They would argue that is because the electorate stopped listening to him a long time ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-02/tony-abbott-mounts-strong-defence-of-record-as-prime-minister/...

[debra9275]

it seems like he is blackmailing his own party

 Am I heard that too, that backbenchers were upset that he never consulted with anyone before dumping the PPL, another so-called 'captains pick'

is this man so arrogant that he believes he has a mandate to do whatever he wants??

also Paints, though you've been ridiculed quite a lot for your views on citizenship by  someone here, it seems you are not alone in wanting answers

[cherry*135]

The UK citizenship renounciation thing is fishy.... Those involved just hope the questioning about it will 'go away' .

[debra9275]

well it is fishy really, why don't they just prove it.?.. that would be the easiest option instead of pus sy footing around it

avoiding proving it just causes suspicion and speculation if he has nothing to hide, show us the proof

[cherry*135]

Yes, show the proof, if there is any.

"Tony Abbott’s chief-of-staff, Peta Credlin, has gone to great lengths to refuse Freedom of Information requests for access to any available documentation from the National Archives of Australia, or the British Office of Records."

The National Archive record for Abbott was made confidential about 12 months ago. That must point to trying to hide something..

[cherry*135]

"National Archives of Australia keep citizenship applications for everyone who applies to be an Australian citizen. These documents should record if Abbott had renounced his British citizenship at that time.

These are generally public documents available to all. However, in Abbott's case, the NAA decided to make the application file a secret document in February 2014."