Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley's recent economic plan announcement has reignited a familiar debate in Australian politics: the so-called "culture of dependence".

Login or signup to continue reading

However, this time, the scope of her critique has widened - not only targeting welfare recipients, but also public servants, who she suggests are part of a broader reliance on government spending.

It's a provocative framing, and one that risks undermining the very people who keep our public systems functioning.

Yet amid the rhetoric, I thought Ley made one very valid point: her call to work backwards from the outcomes we want to achieve.

"How do we deliver the most efficient and necessary service for the Australian people? Where is the waste?" she asked.

On this, she's absolutely right. Efficiency should be a cornerstone of government spending. But the real question is: Who gets to define what's "necessary" and what's "waste"? And how is that decision made?

Historically, those definitions have been shaped by political ideology rather than lived experience. Efficiency becomes a euphemism for cuts.

Waste becomes a synonym for welfare. It becomes those most in need - people with disabilities, mental health challenges, and regional families - who are rendered as non-contributing burdens, invisible by eligibility criteria, inaccessible services, and funding withdrawals. And frankly, that is neither accurate nor acceptable.

Australia's welfare system is considered to be "lean" on the international stage.

According to OECD data, our spending on social security is below average, and our mutual obligation policies - requiring recipients to meet strict........

© Canberra Times