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].
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.
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].
* * * * 發現 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 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].
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 確實 què shí 低 dī 於 yú 貧困線 pín kùn xiàn 。 。
Newstart was indeed below the poverty line.
然而 rán ér , , 該聲 gāi shēng 稱 chēng 具有 jù yǒu 誤導性 wù dǎo xìng , , 因為 yīn wèi 它將 tā jiāng 提案 tí àn 呈現 chéng xiàn 為 wèi 已 yǐ 實施 shí shī 的 de 政策 zhèng cè , , 而 ér 實際 shí jì 上 shàng 它 tā 在 zài 參議院 cān yì yuàn 被否 bèi fǒu 決且 jué qiě 從 cóng 未成 wèi chéng 為 wèi 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 確實 què shí 低 dī 於 yú 貧困線 pín kùn xiàn 。 。
Newstart was indeed below the poverty line.
然而 rán ér , , 該聲 gāi shēng 稱 chēng 具有 jù yǒu 誤導性 wù dǎo xìng , , 因為 yīn wèi 它將 tā jiāng 提案 tí àn 呈現 chéng xiàn 為 wèi 已 yǐ 實施 shí shī 的 de 政策 zhèng cè , , 而 ér 實際 shí jì 上 shàng 它 tā 在 zài 參議院 cān yì yuàn 被否 bèi fǒu 決且 jué qiě 從 cóng 未成 wèi chéng 為 wèi 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.