Prime Minister Anthony Albanese accused the federal opposition on Thursday of “dog-whistling” to voters by adopting policies that mirror One Nation’s hardline stance on immigration, as the Coalition unveiled plans to restrict social benefits to Australian citizens only. The move has sparked sharp criticism from refugee advocacy groups, who warn that permanent residents and visa holders—many of whom contribute significantly to the economy—risk becoming political scapegoats in an increasingly polarised debate over welfare spending.
In his budget reply speech in Parliament House, Opposition Leader Angus Taylor announced the Coalition’s intention to index tax brackets to inflation and cut immigration numbers, while also proposing that welfare payments—including the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)—be limited to citizens. The policy shift, framed as a response to “bracket creep” and rising cost-of-living pressures, has drawn direct comparisons to One Nation’s platform, which has long championed stricter immigration controls and welfare restrictions for non-citizens.
“This is not about fiscal responsibility—it’s about dividing Australians,” Albanese said in a statement following Taylor’s speech. “The opposition is now openly imitating One Nation’s playbook, using fear of migrants to distract from their own failure to address housing affordability and healthcare wait times. These policies are not just cruel. they are a direct attack on the multicultural fabric of this country.”
The Coalition’s proposal to exclude permanent residents and visa holders from welfare benefits has alarmed advocacy groups, who argue that such measures would disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, including refugees and temporary protection visa holders who have integrated into Australian society. The Refugee Council of Australia warned that the policy could create a “two-tiered system” where long-term residents—many of whom pay taxes and hold jobs—are systematically excluded from safety nets.
“Migrants should not be used as scapegoats in a political game,” said Council CEO Paul Power. “These are people who have contributed to Australia’s economy, paid into superannuation, and raised families here. Cutting them off from essential services is not only unjust—it’s economically shortsighted.”
Labor has framed the Coalition’s welfare restrictions as a deliberate attempt to stoke anti-immigration sentiment ahead of the next federal election, citing internal polling that suggests voters in key marginal seats are increasingly concerned about rising living costs rather than immigration numbers. A leaked internal briefing from the Coalition’s policy unit, obtained by The Guardian, indicated that Taylor’s speech was designed to appeal to undecided voters in regional Queensland and New South Wales by positioning the opposition as tough on immigration while blaming Labor for “open-door policies.”
The proposed changes to immigration policy—including a target to reduce annual intake by 20,000—have also drawn scrutiny. Migration agents and business groups, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce, have warned that sudden cuts could disrupt labor markets in sectors heavily reliant on skilled migrants, such as healthcare and construction. “Australia’s economy runs on migration,” said Chamber CEO Andrew McLean. “Slashing numbers without a clear plan will create shortages and hurt businesses already struggling with inflation.”
Labor has signaled it will oppose the Coalition’s welfare restrictions in Parliament, with Albanese’s office confirming that the government will introduce countermeasures to protect permanent residents’ access to services. However, the political battle over immigration and welfare is expected to dominate the final months of the parliamentary term, with both sides gearing up for a potential early election.
The next stage in the policy debate will unfold when the Coalition releases a detailed discussion paper on its welfare reform plans, scheduled for release next week. The paper is expected to address concerns about the administrative burden of implementing citizenship checks for benefits, though opposition sources have indicated that the party remains committed to the principle of restricting payments to citizens only.
