Angus Taylor’s denial of welfare to non-citizens is ‘thin’, mean and unjust

share_windows This article appeared in Crikey on May 19 2026.

In Angus Taylor’s announcement of the Coalition’s policy of blocking non-citizens from accessing the NDIS and 17 other welfare programs in his Budget Address in Reply speech, he did not specify migrants from which countries. But given that until recently China has been Australia’s biggest source of migrants next to the United Kingdom, and that China does not allow dual citizenship, he must be aware that many thousands of Chinese-Australian permanent residents would fall foul of his policy, should it ever see the light of political day.

New figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that India is poised to take over China as the number one supplier of migrants, and India, like China, does not allow dual citizenship. That said, Indian-Australians can apply for a special visa status which enables them to retain many of the same rights as Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) and Indian citizens in economic, financial, legal and educational fields.

Compared with migrants from India, those from China have much less room to practise “flexible citizenship”. Chinese law not only forbids dual nationality, it also makes clear that anyone who takes up citizenship in another country will automatically lose Chinese citizenship. This also means the loss of hukou (residential household registration), which entitles individuals to access welfare and subsidies in China. People holding foreign citizenship also face more stringent regulatory frameworks if they wish to conduct business transactions, purchase/sell properties, or inherit/pass on an inheritance.

This explains why Kos Samaras believes that Angus Taylor’s policy seems to be targeting Chinese Australians, for whom taking Australian citizenship is not simply an “administrative step” but is in fact a “severing”.

Currently, around 5.5% of Australian residents identify as having Chinese ancestry, among whom 2.2% are first-generation migrants from China. Many couples from this cohort adopt a strategy of compromise: one spouse and their children take up Australian citizenship, while the other spouse retains their Chinese passport. Until recently, when the Chinese government began allowing 30-day visa-free visits for all Australians, having to apply for a Chinese visa to visit family in China has been a significant disincentive for giving up a Chinese passport.

All this goes to explain why opposition to the Coalition’s policy has been most vociferous among this cohort of Chinese Australians. Sydney Today, a popular online Chinese-language outlet in Australia, pays close attention to the sentiments of its intended readers. The outlet has published more than 10 articles on this matter in the space of two days. A Canberra-based Chinese community forum issued a statement voicing strong criticisms of the policy, saying that:

“Citizenship is more than just legal status; it’s also a commitment to belonging, participation and shared responsibility. Any changes to citizenship policies must be fair, transparent and respectful, avoiding unnecessary obstacles or sending the message that long-term immigrants are ‘unwelcome’ or ‘unimportant’.

A media release from the Chinese Community Council of Australia, Victoria (CCCAV), calling for “fairness and inclusion” in the migration policy debate, also cautions against creating division, reinforcing an “us versus them” narrative, and undermining the sense of belonging.

The Australia-China Youth Entrepreneurs League (ACYEL) also issued an open letter, arguing:

“Policy design should … fully respect the genuine contributions made by immigrant groups who have long been working, starting businesses, paying taxes and actively participating in social development in Australia.

Many Chinese-Australians with a PRC background spent much time over the weekend digesting and ventilating vehement opposition to the policy in WeChat groups.

The phrase “a fairer, freer, and better Australia” was mentioned four times in Taylor’s budget reply speech, even though these non-citizens would still have to continue paying taxes to fund the services they would be denied under the Coalition’s policy.

When we juxtapose the Coalition’s policy and rhetoric with responses from both migrant group communities and public commentators, we see not only a disagreement on a specific policy, but contestation surrounding a few principles that are fundamental to liberal democracies that are blessed — or burdened, depending on how you see it — with multicultural diversity.

First, we see a clash between a morally defensible but politically unrepresented argument for recognition, and a crude and morally emaciated but populist rhetoric of redistribution. While migrant groups are at pains to gain recognition for their cultural, economic and social contributions to Australia, they are still considered by the likes of Angus Taylor as a “net drain” on Australia.

Second, we see a battle between a “thin” citizenship and a “thick”, broader, socially embedded and substantive conception of citizenship.

Third, what is being played out is a conflict over how to encourage national belonging. Taylor’s rhetoric points to a coercive and conditional belonging, forcing people to choose loyalty and penalising those who remain outside formal citizenship or national identity (“you need to make a choice”, he said).

When a Qantas plane carrying 200 Chinese-Australian citizens and 43 permanent residents from virus-ravaged Wuhan touched down on Christmas Island in early February 2020, the captain said, “Welcome home to Australia.” One of the passengers who had just disembarked from the plane was asked by a radio journalist to say a few words: “When we first arrived on the island they said, ‘Welcome home’ … make[s] your heart very warm,” all the while sobbing and choking on her words.

Think about why a casual, even routine, remark from the Qantas pilot had moved this Chinese-Australian woman so much. One possible conclusion is that, apart from being really relieved to finally escape from the rapidly spreading COVID virus in Wuhan, she might have felt included when the captain, as a “true blue Aussie”, nicely, if not consciously, reinforced the message of Australia as a home for people from different cultures and religions, including herself.