The recent anouncment by Tony Abbot may well have some 'dole bludgers' trembling in thier boots.

You see many 'mining towns', until now, have often been a haven for 'dole bludgers', as accomidation was cheap and many did not require a reference to gain shelter.

Further to this, it was often the case whereby they did not have to report to centre link as they were 'outside the perimiter' of what was considered a 'reasonable distance', therefore they simply lived in relative peace and quiet and nobody anoyed them.

Ever heard the term 'blockies'. This referes to these people, many of which live in 'shipping containers' etc.

It will be very interesting to follow this as they are running out of places to hide and, they could no longer use the excuse of 'there's no work out here'.

rehctub, I'd like to see more detail on what Abbott is proposing. Was it a comment to get some attention back on him with recent media political attention on the health reform proposal?

I have some doubt that those deliberately on long term dole would actually be a lot of use to mining companies no matter how short of workers they are.

I also wonder about the long term social impacts of forced moving of young people away from their support networks and into environments which already have a reputation for quite destructive social patterns eg very heavy drinking. Is it out of the frying pan and into the fire?

On the other hand managed properly it might break the cycle of long term unemployment for some people who just can't do it on their own. It might help some escape social networks which are very destructive for some.

If Abbott is serious I hope that he is looking at the whole picture and not just issues of dole reduction and labor shortage.

R0bert

I'm troubled by the pronouncement. I agree that there is a cohort who are wilfully welfare-dependent, I don't see that we, as a democratic and socially-progressive society can abandon them to their fate by removing their entitlements. It potentially creates a whole new set of problems, including crime and disaffection leading to unrest.

Industry has long been trying to create a large pool of cheap skilled and semi-skilled manual workers who are mobile and have little attachment to place. The 457 visas, Work Choices. This is just another way of approaching the same problem as they see it, which is servicing remote industry, while at the same time reducing the proportion of the money made that has to be used to support those who are idle. Both sides of politics support this as an aim, only the mode varies.

Abbott's proposal also begs some questions. Is unemployment among male youth a significant problem? If it is, why?

I suspect that it is a large problem, and that the main reason is that a great many of the jobs that this group would once have done are now being done by females. At my local Hungry Jacks store, I've only ever seen 2 males on staff at a time, of a staff of perhaps a dozen. My local Macdonalds is a little better, but the males are confined to the back end, doing the cooking and emptying the garbage. I bet they don't get paid any more than the girls do for their "work" talking into a headset, which may explain why there aren't many of them.

They'd get more if they went to the mones or the remote processing facilities, but they'd have to leave all they know behind. Why do girls face no such pressure? Yes, I know that Abbott's idea was not gender-specific, but does anyone see a flood of girls to Karratha or Cloncurry or Leonora if this were implemented? They'll be there, but only to take the cash off the boys after they've had a skinful and feel horny, just as it is now.

Robert

Yes, we do need to see some detail. Perhaps it might be better to offer travel vouchers, assistance with accomodation etc.

Anti

Those evil females, stealing those burger flipping jobs off their rightful male owners and then expecting the same pay as the men. I'm sure that you will get a bite out of this.

Benk:"Those evil females, stealing those burger flipping jobs off their rightful male owners and then expecting the same pay as the men."

It's not the "evil females" as you so colourfully put it, but the employment policies of the businesses and their franchisors that cause this sort of thing. When combined with a large influx of foreign students it means that the entry-level jobs are not being made available to local boys.

We're not talking professional positions here, just entry-level work experience, which can lead to better things. Across all sectors, these jobs are mostly being done by girls, not boys.

That may have been fine when there was plenty of good local trades work in construction and manufacturing, allowing some boys to get apprenticeships or do some labouring, but that ain't so any more.

Let me stress, this is not the fault of the girls who are chatting into their headsets, it is a result of years of feminist activism creating discriminatory policies in favour of women. It has created a new stratification of society and the ramifications are, as always with social matters, not well-grasped.

"Let me stress, this is not the fault of the girls who are chatting into their headsets,"

I wonder if boys would be 'chatting' into their headsets. Your language gives you away every time Anti.

Those who are 'dole bludging' are not looking for jobs Anti, whether all those evil women, are taking those jobs is irrelevant.

As a student, I worked for the Pizza Hut once and contrary to your philosophy about back of house and front of house roles it was because this company thought the women looked good out the front and the boys could do the heavy lifting out the back.

No feminist conspiracy there I can assure you from personal experience.