Persons living in high unemployment remote areas merely for lifestyle should be assisted to move to where work is found or loose their benifits. The Cocos Islands is a case in point, population 600 persons living in public housing and 90% receiving welfare from homeland Australian citizens. Those employed are fishermen, in tourism industry and Governmet employment. The populations future is not sustainable on the Ireland. The future of welfare lies in paying taxes and productivity to sustain welfare.

Josephus wrote: Persons living in high unemployment remote areas merely for lifestyle should be assisted to move to where work is found or loose their benifits. The Cocos Islands is a case in point, population 600 persons living in public housing and 90% receiving welfare from homeland Australian citizens. Those employed are fishermen, in tourism industry and Governmet employment. The populations future is not sustainable on the Ireland. The future of welfare lies in paying taxes and productivity to sustain welfare.

Dear Josephus,

How do we determine whether a person is living in a place merely for the life style? There are 600 people on Cocos Island. 500 people of Malay origin on Home Island, and 100 people of European origin on West Island. I think it’s safe to assume that the 500 probably are not from mainland Australia and are probably native to the island. To bring some of them to Australia would mean separating them from their families. This could increase the possibility of mental illness and might cost more than if they were left on the island. It would probably be hard for them to find jobs since there is probably limited training facilities on the island. Since you brought the matter of sustainability we have to consider the cost.

Possibly a fairer solution is providing the people with advice and equipment for birth control and possibly even offering a bonus for not having babies. The world is rapidly filling up with people having nowhere to go.

David F nobody should be forced to leave their island, however, if they choose to stay, then do so with sponging off the tax payer.

Hunt and gather all you like, but don't expect to live the dream at others expense.

Furthermore, people who continue to bare children in these remote location, knowing full well the prospects for employment are grim, need to take a good look at themselves.

I doubt a subject exists, any single one we can think about, that can not bring out the worst in us, or some of us.
I remain grateful it is not us who judge who will get help and who will not.
I once took my annual leave mid year, while shopping, it was a long time ago, red neck Granny's selected me as a DOLE BLUDGER! loudly insisting I should be ashamed.
I took little time in demolishing them, with far more class than their insulting attack.
My follow up story in a news paper further humbled them.
It was never my intention to hurt or harm those in need, a blind defense of every receiver is unhelpful.
In fact accountability in this area would be first step in better incomes for the true needy.
We MUST confront the costs of welfare.
I have before, and always will, support work not dole for unemployed.
Work with returns to tax payers helping the elderly, true honest work.
We must monitor every thing we do, welfare defense transport, every thing, often to ensure we get value for our dollars.
Why instead of defending the status quo do we not look at new ideas ?
A job, poison for some, is a matter of self confidence for others ,some thing to build a life on.
Rechtub, ok yes a symptom of the problem is as you say, harsh? true too!

Posted by rehctub

" ... I can remember thinking, how good is this, not only don't I have to get out of bed, but I get paid to do nothing. ... "

My understanding of the system is such that unemployed people have to actively seek work and evidence the fact, and when offered employment, and with very limited exceptions, MUST take the work or otherwise be cut off.

..

However, this really is a ridiculous furfy of a debate as the real parasites are those in the guvment and public service, who get paid grossly excessive amounts of tax payer's money to do far too little. That is where the real problem lies in my mind. And not only are some of these people grossly overpaid and underworked, thus being insufficiently productive, they are consuming so much in excess that it has created a problem of insufficient employment, homelessness, inadequate medical and dental treatment and inadequate and inappropriate legal representation.

In my mind, there needs to be a minimum standard, which includes the above in generous measure.

I tell you *RehTub* for myself, as someone like you has has almost without exception worked in small business all my life, I find these cretins to be mostly lazy, stupid and overpaid.

As one example, we have that disgusting little Ferengi from the noalition in W.A. who can't seem to manage to get the Perth hospital renovations done, but apparently he can find $AU25 million to renovate his office, and that's just the tip of the ice berg.

It is the obligation of guvment to create an economy with more than enough living wage solutions for everyone, and when there is excess, maybe some temporary work permits for foreigners.

But, successive generations of the mainstream simply refuse to do this because they would have to give themselves a serious "haircut"

Corruption is common place throughout the world whether it is "legal" or otherwise, and invariably results in situations where the minority control the majority of the wealth to the extent of draining the base of everything that it has.

DreamOn wrote:
However, this really is a ridiculous furfy of a debate as the real parasites are those in the guvment and public service, who get paid grossly excessive amounts of tax payer's money to do far too little. That is where the real problem lies in my mind.

Yeah like getting paid 180,000 a year for three days work to tell us we need to pull peoples mercury fillings out before cremating them to prevent the globe from warming and telling us it was never going to rain again and that W.A would be a ghost town by 2012 and now Sydney will be a ghost town and we're all going to drown from rising see levels while buying up waterfront properties.

Those types, DreamOn?