Senate debates

Wednesday, 10 May 2017

Questions without Notice

Pensions and Benefits

2:38 pm

Photo of David LeyonhjelmDavid Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Ryan, Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. The Parliamentary Budget Office recently calculated, at my request, that Australian taxpayers provide $15 billion of welfare to 870,000 people who live in Australia but are not Australian citizens, of whom 710,000 are not covered by a bilateral welfare agreement with another country. To put this in perspective, it means that a family of four people in Western Sydney hands $2,500 a year to the government, which then gives it to people who are not Australians. Is the government open to considering reduced access to welfare for noncitizens, particularly those who are not refugees? If not, how would you justify this expenditure to the family of four from Penrith who are paying for it?

Comments

Tibor Majlath
Posted on 28 Jan 2018 1:41 pm (Report this comment)

To put the senator's figures into perspective: he states that 870,000 non-Australians cost $15 billion in welfare.

That is, $15,000,000,000/870,000 = $17,241 per non_Australian.

So how does this cost a family of four people in Western Sydney $2,500 a year which is handed to the government, which then gives it to people who are not Australians?

The figures don't add up amid the woefully inexact phrasing.

As usual, this 'one size fits' all approach to policy so hated by conservatives doesn't take into account genuine exceptions.

Tibor Majlath
Posted on 28 Jan 2018 1:41 pm (Report this comment)

To put the senator's figures into perspective: he states that 870,000 non-Australians cost $15 billion in welfare.

That is, $15,000,000,000/870,000 = $17,241 per non_Australian.

So how does this cost a family of four people in Western Sydney $2,500 a year which is handed to the government, which then gives it to people who are not Australians?

The figures don't add up amid the woefully inexact phrasing.

As usual, this 'one size fits' all approach to policy so hated by conservatives doesn't take into account genuine exceptions.

Log in or join to post a public comment.