This editorial on the guest worker scheme is sensible. While Brendan Nelson is right to highlight potential pitfalls, the reality is that some unemployment in Australia is 'structural' in nature if I recall the term used by labour market analysts. Retrenched car workers may be unable or unwilling to work on a farm. Potential employees or contractors may not wish to move from their current abodes; they may not like outdoor work; they may consider the differential between agricultural pay rates and Centrelink payments to be insufficient, or some may simply not wish to engage in paid employment at their stage of life. Of course we have a responsibility to try to provide work for as many Australian citizens as possible, but the taxi industry in the capital cities (particularly Melbourne and Sydney, though not in regional centres like Ballarat) is an example of a sub-sector that would be struggling even more if it lacked access to (say) Indian students. On a wider scale, aren't there some jobs that will go begging for ever unless Australia commences a much wider guest worker scheme? For instance, what about domestic helpers, who could be hired from nearby nations? It would be contentious if they were to be paid less than Australian mandated wage rates per hour, but provided they were given minimum conditions such as a mandatory two days off (unlike in Hong Kong or Singapore where one day off is the norm) and some other agreed conditions to ensure that 'abuse' of them did not occur, wouldn't these workers increase overall productivity and economic growth in Australia, while providing individuals from overseas with a way to feed their families back home? At the very least Australians should be discussing these issues, because it is clear that many jobs are going unfilled (while concurrently and sadly, some workers are losing their jobs in other sectors). Properly handled, it could be a win-win situation.