The Claim
“Cut welfare for young people, so they have to survive on $0 per week for 6 months, before being put on a welfare scheme which is below the poverty line anyway. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said that this breaches our human rights obligations.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The Coalition's 2014 budget proposed a "earn or learn" policy for unemployed people under 30, requiring a six-month waiting period for the dole and allowing six-month cutoffs if claimants were not "earning or learning" [1]. The policy also proposed lifting the eligibility age for Newstart Allowance from 22 to 25, meaning younger unemployed people would only receive Youth Allowance at a lower rate [2].
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, established by the previous Labor government but chaired by Liberal Senator Dean Smith, found the six-month waiting period proposal was "incompatible with the rights to social security and an adequate standard of living" [2]. The committee also found the age eligibility change would breach rights to equality and non-discrimination based on age [2].
However, the claim that young people would have to "survive on $0 per week for 6 months" is misleading because it omits that the policy was never actually implemented. The proposed changes faced significant Senate opposition from Labor, Greens, and crossbenchers including the Palmer United Party [1][2]. The government lacked the votes to pass the legislation, and the measures never became law.
Regarding Newstart being below the poverty line: ACOSS and other research confirmed that in 2013-2014, Newstart was approximately $74 below the poverty line [3]. The OECD described it as one of the lowest unemployment benefits in the developed world [3]. This was not unique to the Coalition period—Newstart had not increased in real terms since 1994 under the Keating Labor government [3].
Missing Context
The policy was never implemented. While the Coalition proposed the six-month waiting period in the 2014 budget, they could not secure Senate support. The measures were blocked and young people continued to receive benefits without the six-month wait [1][2].
Multiple exemptions were proposed. Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews stated there would be exemptions for people unable to work more than 30 hours per week, parents receiving child tax benefits, part-time apprentices, principal carers, disability employment services clients, and those in full-time education [1].
Newstart was below poverty line before Coalition took office. Newstart had not increased in real terms since 1994 under the Keating Labor government [3]. By 2013, it was already $140 per week below pension rates and $74 below the poverty line [3]. This was a long-standing structural issue with the welfare system that predated the Coalition government.
The single parent payment cuts referenced were Labor policy. The SMH article (Source 1) actually refers to Labor government decisions to move single parents off parenting payments onto Newstart when their youngest child turned eight—affecting 84,000 families with benefit cuts of up to $110 per week [3].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original sources include mainstream Australian media (SMH, ABC, SBS) and an international source (FiveThirtyEight, which focuses on US data and is less relevant to Australian policy).
- ABC News: Public broadcaster with reputation for balanced, factual reporting. Article provides both government justification and criticism [1].
- SBS News: Publicly funded multicultural broadcaster. Accurately reports the Joint Committee findings while noting the political composition (Liberal chair, bipartisan membership) [2].
- SMH (Sources 1 & 4): Mainstream Fairfax newspaper. Opinion piece by ACOSS CEO (Source 1) has advocacy bias; news article (Source 4) more balanced.
- FiveThirtyEight (Source 3): US-focused data journalism site. Article discusses US unemployment benefits, not Australian policy, making it irrelevant to this claim.
All Australian sources are generally credible, though Source 3 is not applicable to Australian policy context.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government youth welfare policy unemployment Newstart rate"
Findings:
Newstart rate stagnation: Newstart had not increased in real terms since 1994 under the Keating Labor government [3]. Both Rudd (2007-2010, 2013) and Gillard (2010-2013) governments maintained the same rate structure without significant real increases. The payment remained below the poverty line throughout Labor's term.
Single parent payment cuts: The Labor government made controversial decisions to move single parents onto Newstart when their youngest child turned eight, cutting benefits by up to $110/week for approximately 84,000 families [3]. This drew criticism from the same advocacy groups that later criticized the Coalition's 2014 proposals.
Committee establishment: The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights that found against the Coalition's 2014 proposal was actually established by the previous Labor government via the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 [2]. The committee had bipartisan membership including four government members, four Labor representatives, and one Green [2].
Comparison: Both major parties maintained Newstart below the poverty line and both implemented or proposed welfare tightening measures. The key difference is the Coalition's 2014 proposal was more severe (six-month wait) and was blocked in the Senate, while Labor's single parent cuts were implemented.
Balanced Perspective
The claim contains elements of truth but is misleading in important ways. The Coalition did propose a six-month waiting period for young unemployed people and the Joint Committee on Human Rights did find this would breach human rights obligations [2]. Newstart/Youth Allowance was indeed below the poverty line [3].
However, critical context is missing: the policy was never implemented due to Senate opposition [1][2]. Young people did not actually have to survive on "$0 per week for 6 months" because the legislation failed.
The government justified the proposal as necessary to address youth unemployment and encourage workforce participation. Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews cited a New Zealand system where a one-month preclusion period led to about 40% of people not returning to welfare [1]. The government also emphasized extensive exemptions for vulnerable groups [1].
The "below poverty line" issue was not unique to the Coalition. Newstart had been below the poverty line for two decades under both Labor and Coalition governments. The OECD's description of it as one of the lowest unemployment benefits in the developed world applied throughout the Rudd-Gillard period as well [3].
Key context: The welfare tightening trend was bipartisan. Labor cut single parent benefits, while the Coalition proposed (but failed to implement) the six-month waiting period. Neither party significantly increased Newstart during their respective terms in office.
PARTIALLY TRUE
5.0
out of 10
The claim accurately describes what the Coalition proposed in the 2014 budget, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights did find it would breach human rights obligations. Newstart was indeed below the poverty line. However, the claim is misleading because it presents the proposal as implemented policy when it was actually blocked in the Senate and never became law. The claim also omits that welfare payments below the poverty line was a long-standing condition that predated the Coalition government by nearly two decades.
Final Score
5.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim accurately describes what the Coalition proposed in the 2014 budget, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights did find it would breach human rights obligations. Newstart was indeed below the poverty line. However, the claim is misleading because it presents the proposal as implemented policy when it was actually blocked in the Senate and never became law. The claim also omits that welfare payments below the poverty line was a long-standing condition that predated the Coalition government by nearly two decades.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
abc.net.au
Plans to crack down on the dole have sparked fears that young people will be left stranded, although the Government says it will make allowances for some people in difficult circumstances.
Abc Net -
2
sbs.com.au
The federal government has been warned it will breach Australia's international human rights obligations if it makes young job seekers wait six months for unemployment benefits.
SBS News -
3
smh.com.au
While many of us celebrate the festive season, spare a thought for the thousands of single-parent families who have been served a cruel blow at what is supposed to be a happy time of year. The federal government's decision to move all single parents off parenting payments when their youngest child turns eight has meant about 84,000 of Australia's poorest families saw their benefits cut by as much as $110 a week from January 1.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
4
povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au
Povertyandinequality Acoss Org -
5
echo.net.au
Australia’s peak community sector and youth affairs bodies have welcomed a joint bipartisan parliamentary committee finding that two of the Government’s proposed changes to youth payments are incompatible with Australia’s human rights obligations.
The Echo
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.