The Claim
“Changed Newstart eligibility so that 22 to 24 year-olds get Youth Allowance instead, which is $90 less per fortnight.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core claim is factually accurate. The Coalition government (Turnbull) did introduce legislation on February 8, 2017 that would have changed eligibility for 22-24 year-olds from Newstart Allowance to Youth Allowance, and there was indeed a substantial payment difference [1].
According to the Junkee article by Osman Faruqi, the change was included in the 'Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017' [1]. The article specifically states: "Australians aged 22-24 will no longer be eligible for the Newstart allowance. Instead, they will have to try and claim Youth Allowance" [1].
Regarding the payment difference, the article confirms: "Because single Youth Allowance recipients receive about $90 a fortnight less than those on Newstart" [1]. This $90 per fortnight difference is presented as established fact in the article citing government policy documentation [1].
The bill also included a 4-week waiting period before young people could access Youth Allowance, adding an additional hardship element to the policy [1].
Missing Context
However, the claim omits critical context about the policy's fate and the government's stated rationale:
Policy Outcome: The claim presents this as an accomplished change ("Changed Newstart eligibility"), but it's important to note this was proposed legislation introduced in 2017 [1]. The claim doesn't make clear whether the bill actually passed parliament and became law. The claim appears to be referencing a proposed change rather than an implemented one, which is a significant distinction [1].
Government Justification: According to the government's explanation cited in the Junkee article, the stated purpose was to "provide incentives to young unemployed people to obtain the relevant education and training to increase employability" [1]. The theory was that young people earning slightly more from casual work while on Youth Allowance (with a higher income disregard) might be incentivized to study alongside work [1]. The article notes the government was "pretending like that's actually a really good thing that will encourage education and jobs" - making clear this is the article's interpretation of the motivation as primarily budgetary [1].
Budget Savings Motive: The policy was clearly designed as a cost-cutting measure, as the bill was titled the "Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform" Bill, indicating welfare savings were a primary objective [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is Junkee, which is an Australian youth-focused digital media publication with a clear progressive/left-leaning editorial stance [1]. The article is by Osman Faruqi, published February 8, 2017.
Credibility considerations:
- Junkee is a mainstream Australian online publication, not a fringe partisan site [1]
- The article's tone is explicitly critical ("sneaky bill," "screw young people"), indicating strong editorial opinion [1]
- However, the core factual claims (the policy change and payment difference) are verifiable from government sources [1]
- The article references News.com.au reporting as corroboration [1]
- Junkee does not hide its youth-focused, progressive perspective - readers would understand this is advocacy journalism [1]
The article frames the policy negatively but the underlying facts about the Newstart/Youth Allowance eligibility change and payment difference appear accurate [1].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Labor's approach to welfare policy for young people under the Rudd and Gillard governments (2007-2013) included some policy changes affecting welfare recipients, though not directly equivalent to this Newstart eligibility change.
Most notably, Labor shifted tens of thousands of sole parents from the more generous Parenting Payment (single) to the less generous Newstart Allowance starting January 1, 2013 [2]. According to ABC Fact Check, the Gillard government made changes to parenting payment eligibility in the 2012-13 budget, which resulted in approximately 60,315 recipients of Parenting Payment (single) ceasing eligibility, with a further 27,728 ceasing eligibility between 2013-2016 [2]. This policy change was estimated to save the budget $687 million over four years [2].
This means Labor previously moved large numbers of welfare recipients onto lower payments - though this affected sole parents rather than young people [2]. So the approach of shifting people to lower-rate payments as a welfare savings measure was not unique to the Coalition [2].
However, there is no evidence Labor proposed moving young people aged 22-24 from Newstart to Youth Allowance specifically [2]. Labor's welfare reforms focused on different groups (sole parents, disability, pension age) rather than this specific age group change [2].
Balanced Perspective
The Policy's Intent vs. Impact:
The Coalition's stated reasoning - that young people would pursue more education/training to take advantage of higher casual work income disregards - was described by critics as implausible [1]. The Junkee article's point that "young people won't be forced to study in order to receive the new payments" highlights the apparent disconnect between the stated incentive and the actual policy design [1].
However, the government's broader objective appears to have been consistent with its welfare reform philosophy: reducing welfare dependency through tighter eligibility and lower payments for those deemed capable of work [1].
Context on Payment Differences:
The $90 per fortnight difference is substantial when considering that young people are already living on limited income. This represented a real hardship for the affected group - those aged 22-24 who were unemployed and unable to qualify as students for Youth Allowance [1].
Labor's Precedent:
Significantly, Labor had also pursued welfare savings through moving recipients to lower-payment categories, though affecting different groups (sole parents) [2]. This suggests welfare tightening is a bipartisan strategy in Australian politics, not unique to the Coalition [2].
Implementation Status:
The critical missing piece: the Junkee article reports on the proposal of this policy in February 2017, but does not report on whether parliament ultimately passed the bill [1]. This is an important gap - proposing welfare cuts and actually passing them are different matters, especially given the Senate makeup during Coalition governments often required negotiation [1].
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The claim is factually accurate regarding the substance of the policy proposal - the Coalition government did introduce legislation in February 2017 to change 22-24 year-old eligibility from Newstart to Youth Allowance, with an approximately $90 per fortnight payment reduction [1].
However, the claim is misleading in its presentation through two issues:
Implied Implementation: The claim says "Changed Newstart eligibility" (past tense), suggesting this was an implemented policy change, when the source documents this as a proposed change introduced to parliament [1]. Whether parliament actually passed this bill is not addressed in the available sources.
Incomplete Context: The claim omits that this was part of broader welfare reform proposals with budgetary motivations, that the government provided a specific (if questionable) rationale for the change, and that Labor had previously pursued similar welfare savings strategies affecting different recipient groups [2].
The core facts are correct, but the framing suggests a completed action when what's documented is a legislative proposal.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim is factually accurate regarding the substance of the policy proposal - the Coalition government did introduce legislation in February 2017 to change 22-24 year-old eligibility from Newstart to Youth Allowance, with an approximately $90 per fortnight payment reduction [1].
However, the claim is misleading in its presentation through two issues:
Implied Implementation: The claim says "Changed Newstart eligibility" (past tense), suggesting this was an implemented policy change, when the source documents this as a proposed change introduced to parliament [1]. Whether parliament actually passed this bill is not addressed in the available sources.
Incomplete Context: The claim omits that this was part of broader welfare reform proposals with budgetary motivations, that the government provided a specific (if questionable) rationale for the change, and that Labor had previously pursued similar welfare savings strategies affecting different recipient groups [2].
The core facts are correct, but the framing suggests a completed action when what's documented is a legislative proposal.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (2)
-
1
junkee.com
Here's everything you need to know about today's sneaky bill in parliament.
Junkee -
2
abc.net.au
Social Services Minister Christian Porter says the Government has been reining in the Newstart program, the main form of income support for jobseekers, asserting that the lower average rate of growth in spending under Coalition represents more people moving off the payment and into jobs. RMIT ABC Fact Check runs the numbers.
Abc Net
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.