The claim contains several factual elements that require verification:
**The 2014 Budget Proposals:** The Coalition's 2014-15 budget did propose significant changes to youth unemployment benefits [1].
The measures included:
- Raising the Newstart eligibility age from 22 to 24 (or 25 in some proposals) [2]
- Introducing a six-month waiting period before new claimants under 30 could receive income support [3]
- Requiring recipients to participate in "Work for the Dole" programs for 25 hours per week after the waiting period [4]
**Human Rights Committee Findings:** The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (chaired by Liberal Senator Dean Smith) did find that these measures would breach Australia's international human rights obligations [5].
The committee specifically stated that the six-month waiting period was "incompatible with the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living" under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [6].
The Senate blocked the legislation containing these measures in 2014, and a watered-down version (reduced to a four-week wait) was also blocked in 2015 [8].
The eligibility age increase to 24/25 was only one component of broader youth welfare reforms [9].
2. **The bipartisan nature of the Human Rights Committee:** The committee that found the human rights violations was chaired by a Liberal Senator (Dean Smith) and included five government members, four Labor members, and one Green [10].
While this lends credibility to the findings, the claim omits that the committee itself was government-dominated by design, not an opposition-controlled body.
3. **The government defended the policy:** Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews argued the measures were "compatible with human rights" and necessary to address youth unemployment by encouraging young people to accept jobs rather than relying on income support [11].
The government maintained that affected young people would continue to have access to social security through Youth Allowance.
4. **Exemptions existed:** The proposals included exemptions for people with partial work capacity, principal carers, part-time apprentices, and those with significant barriers to employment [12].
5. **The outcome:** The claim doesn't mention that these controversial measures were ultimately blocked by the Senate and never became law, first in their six-month form (2014) and later in a reduced four-week form (2015) [13].
The original sources provided include:
- **news.com.au** (News Corp): Mainstream commercial news outlet with center-right editorial stance
- **ABC News**: Australia's public broadcaster, generally regarded as authoritative and balanced
- **SBS News**: Public multicultural broadcaster, reputable source
All three sources are mainstream media outlets and the ABC/SBS are publicly funded with statutory obligations to accuracy and impartiality.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government Youth Allowance changes welfare eligibility"
The Rudd Labor government (2007-2010) also made controversial changes to Youth Allowance eligibility in 2009.
* * * *
These changes:
- Tightened workforce participation criteria for establishing independence under Youth Allowance [14]
- Required students to work part-time for 15+ hours per week for two years, or earn a specified amount in an 18-month period, to qualify as independent [15]
- Were criticized for negatively impacting rural and regional students who needed to take "gap years" to meet the work criteria [16]
- Led to protests from student organizations and regional communities who argued the changes made university access harder for students from farming families [17]
**Comparison:** Both governments attempted to tighten youth welfare eligibility, though the Coalition's 2014 proposals were more extensive (six-month waiting period, higher age threshold).
Both faced significant criticism and both were accused of hurting vulnerable young people.
**Context:** Successive Australian governments (both Labor and Coalition) have consistently pursued welfare tightening for young people, reflecting a bipartisan shift toward "mutual obligation" principles and concerns about youth unemployment and workforce participation [18].
**The full story:**
While the Joint Committee on Human Rights did find the Coalition's proposed welfare changes would breach human rights obligations [19], the context is more nuanced than the claim suggests:
1. **These were proposals, not implemented policy:** The changes never actually took effect because they were blocked by the Senate in multiple forms over two years [20].
The claim's phrasing "stopped giving" implies a completed action when it was actually a failed legislative attempt.
2. **Policy rationale:** The government argued the changes were necessary to address youth unemployment by encouraging young people to "earn or learn" rather than relying on benefits [21].
The policy aimed to reduce the risk of young people becoming "disengaged, both socially and economically" [22].
3. **Economic context:** The 2014 budget was delivered during a period of rising youth unemployment (13.2% at the time) and government concern about the sustainability of welfare spending [23].
The measures were projected to save $1.2 billion over four years [24].
4. **Comparative perspective:** Labor's own changes to Youth Allowance in 2009 also drew criticism for making life harder for young people seeking education and independence [25].
Welfare tightening for youth has been a consistent feature of both major parties' policy approaches, differing mainly in scope and specific mechanisms.
5. **Committee limitations:** While the Human Rights Committee's findings are significant, the committee itself noted that the government had not adequately explained how young people would access food and shelter during the six-month waiting period [26].
The government's response argued that existing waiting periods for specific groups already operated similarly [27].
**Key context:** The Coalition's welfare proposals were more extensive than previous reforms, but they were part of a broader pattern of welfare tightening across Australian governments.
The core elements of the claim have factual basis: the Coalition did propose stopping (or delaying) Newstart for young people, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights did find this would violate human rights obligations.
However, the claim's phrasing "stopped giving" is misleading because it implies these changes were implemented, when in fact they were blocked by the Senate and never became law.
The Human Rights Committee's bipartisan composition (including government members) adds credibility to the findings, but the claim omits important context about the policy never being enacted.
The core elements of the claim have factual basis: the Coalition did propose stopping (or delaying) Newstart for young people, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights did find this would violate human rights obligations.
However, the claim's phrasing "stopped giving" is misleading because it implies these changes were implemented, when in fact they were blocked by the Senate and never became law.
The Human Rights Committee's bipartisan composition (including government members) adds credibility to the findings, but the claim omits important context about the policy never being enacted.