On reading the many comments above it would appear many of you have not endured the trauma and difficulties of being unemployed so I assume you all have secure jobs as I did prior to 10th October 2009 when I and others became redundant.

Since then I have applied for thousands of jobs without success and have arrived at the conclusion that due to the high unemployment rate employers have been given the tool of lawful discrimination.

In January 2012 I managed to acquire casual employment working on a production line on afternoon shift but 5 weeks after commencing the job the entire afternoon shift was made redundant. I have applied for many jobs since.

One big hurdle which confronts me is my age, I turned 63 in August. Employers cannot decline anyone employment due to their age because that is discriminatory so the circumvent by using other ways such us not having own transport or not residing locally.

I am compelled to exist on benefits of $498 a fortnight which does not cover my home mortgage payments let alone any other payments which must be paid such as electricity, water and council rates and I'm constantly under the threat of foreclosure and eviction to join the many hundreds of thousands of Australian homeless who have suffered the same fate.

I cannot remember when I had a good healthy and wholesome meal last as I make a loaf of bread last me between benefit payments. I have lost a lot of weight and my health has suffered and yes at times I have contemplated suicide but I think things will change for the better.

So please do not label all welfare benefit recipients as leaches for the minority few who are.

Gypsy:

...With the system I outlined above, unemployment at your age would bring greater benefit. You would be rewarded for loyal service in the workforce, (if you were able to demonstrate a healthy work record over time, that is).

...I agree life can get pretty tough, and too often unemployment is the catalyst. But I defend my comments above, which criticises the current immigration policies relating in particular to boat people.

...Your case is a prime example of why a rorting bunch of free loaders arriving by boats, and masquerading as deserving refugees, should not be tolerated. When a family of unemployable freeloaders are given a welfare cheque of $50.000PA for life, while at the same time the Government responsible, wines about the cost of dole payments to its residents, its time to expose the rort for what it is, and demand from the same Government, an exercise of responsible action against the rorting.

Diver Dan I must agree with a lot of what you said especially about the alleged boat people and refugees.

I fail to understand or comprehend why it is they get better benefits and assistance than Australians.

The only answer to the reasons for it that I can come up with is to distract all Australian people from what is actually happening in our once great country Australia.

The media are a tool of the government to supposedly keep us informed but do they really?

Most of what gets reported is performed in such away to divide and conquer. A prime example is relating and reporting on unions, bikers and other groups which many of us have very little knowledge of actual facts so many of us have the assumption to believe what we read and this distracts us from issues which affect us all, thus divide and conquer.

Another prime example is when they raise issues of welfare recipients the media has a tendency to show the worst recipients of people collecting benefits which inclines people to look at anyone who us on welfare to be free loaders and druggies or alcoholics.