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].
然而 rán ér , , 声称 shēng chēng 年轻人 nián qīng rén 将 jiāng " " 在 zài 6 6 个 gè 月 yuè 内 nèi 每周 měi zhōu 靠 kào 0 0 美元 měi yuán 生存 shēng cún " " 的 de 说法 shuō fǎ 具有 jù yǒu 误导性 wù dǎo xìng , , 因为 yīn wèi 它 tā 遗漏 yí lòu 了 le 该 gāi 政策 zhèng cè 从未 cóng wèi 实际 shí jì 实施 shí shī 的 de 事实 shì shí 。 。
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.
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 policy was never implemented.** While the Coalition proposed the six-month waiting period in the 2014 budget, they could not secure Senate support.
* * * * 虽然 suī rán Coalition Coalition 在 zài 2014 2014 年 nián 预算 yù suàn 中 zhōng 提出 tí chū 了 le 六个月 liù gè yuè 的 de 等待 děng dài 期 qī , , 但 dàn 他们 tā men 无法 wú fǎ 获得 huò dé 参议院 cān yì yuàn 的 de 支持 zhī chí 。 。
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].
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].
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.
Opinion piece by ACOSS CEO (Source 1) has advocacy bias; news article (Source 4) more balanced.
- **FiveThirtyEight (Source 3):** US-focused data journalism site.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government youth welfare policy unemployment Newstart rate"
**Findings:**
1. **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.
2. **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].
* * * * 发现 fā xiàn : : * * * *
This drew criticism from the same advocacy groups that later criticized the Coalition's 2014 proposals.
3. **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.
The claim contains elements of truth but is misleading in important ways.
Coalition Coalition 确实 què shí 提议 tí yì 对 duì 年轻 nián qīng 失业 shī yè 人员 rén yuán 实行 shí xíng 六个月 liù gè yuè 的 de 等待 děng dài 期 qī , , 联合 lián hé 人权委员会 rén quán wěi yuán huì 也 yě 确实 què shí 发现 fā xiàn 这 zhè 将 jiāng 违反 wéi fǎn 人权 rén quán 义务 yì wù [ [ 2 2 ] ] 。 。
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].
The government justified the proposal as necessary to address youth unemployment and encourage workforce participation.
社会 shè huì 服务 fú wù 部长 bù zhǎng Kevin Kevin Andrews Andrews 援引 yuán yǐn 新西兰 xīn xī lán 的 de 制度 zhì dù , , 在 zài 那里 nà lǐ 一个月 yí gè yuè 的 de 排除 pái chú 期 qī 导致 dǎo zhì 约 yuē 40% 40% 的 de 人 rén 不再 bù zài 返回 fǎn huí 领取 lǐng qǔ 福利 fú lì [ [ 1 1 ] ] 。 。
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 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.
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 Newstart 确实 què shí 低于 dī yú 贫困线 pín kùn xiàn 。 。
Newstart was indeed below the poverty line.
然而 rán ér , , 该 gāi 主张 zhǔ zhāng 具有 jù yǒu 误导性 wù dǎo xìng , , 因为 yīn wèi 它 tā 将 jiāng 提议 tí yì 呈现 chéng xiàn 为 wèi 已 yǐ 实施 shí shī 的 de 政策 zhèng cè , , 而 ér 实际上 shí jì shàng 它 tā 在 zài 参议院 cān yì yuàn 被 bèi 阻止 zǔ zhǐ , , 从未 cóng wèi 成为 chéng wéi 法律 fǎ lǜ 。 。
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.
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 Newstart 确实 què shí 低于 dī yú 贫困线 pín kùn xiàn 。 。
Newstart was indeed below the poverty line.
然而 rán ér , , 该 gāi 主张 zhǔ zhāng 具有 jù yǒu 误导性 wù dǎo xìng , , 因为 yīn wèi 它 tā 将 jiāng 提议 tí yì 呈现 chéng xiàn 为 wèi 已 yǐ 实施 shí shī 的 de 政策 zhèng cè , , 而 ér 实际上 shí jì shàng 它 tā 在 zài 参议院 cān yì yuàn 被 bèi 阻止 zǔ zhǐ , , 从未 cóng wèi 成为 chéng wéi 法律 fǎ lǜ 。 。
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.