To reduce the deficit, try means testing

The concept of the welfare state was originally conceived as a safety net for the vulnerable, ensuring nobody falls below a dignified standard of living. In Australia it has grown into a vast network of social support in which everyone participates.

For the elderly there is the age pension, the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, the Support At Home Program, the Home Equity Access Scheme, and the Pensioner Education Supplement. For the disabled there is the Disability Support Pension, carer payments, carer allowances, and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

For families there are the Family Tax Benefit, the Parenting Payment, Parental Leave Pay, and the Child Care Subsidy. For the unemployed there is Job Seeker, Youth Allowance, and the Farm Household Allowance.

For students there is Youth Allowance for Students and Apprentices, Austudy, ABSTUDY, the Higher Education Loan Program, Tertiary Access Payments, Relocation Scholarships, Fares Allowance, and Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme.

For veterans there is the Gold Card, the White Card, Non-Liability Mental Health Care, the Service Pension, Veteran Payments, and Disability Compensation Payments.

In health there is the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, subsidised health insurance, plus the public hospital system.

While universality in social spending is often romanticised as a tool for social cohesion, this has an obvious limit. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.

That stage has now been reached – Australia borrows money to fund all this support with no prospect that it will ever be repaid. A way of reducing welfare spending must be found.

The problem is, Australian voters have repeatedly shown a preference for more government spending to boost services and benefits, and will ferociously resist the removal of any benefits, while also opposing increases in taxes (except taxes imposed on other people).

That leads to politicians promising more generous spending while saying nothing about how it will be funded. They win votes, but the result is a ballooning budget deficit.

Many people like to imagine a Coalition or One Nation government would be courageous enough to explain to the public that this is not sustainable and welfare must be restricted. History suggests that is a false expectation, at least for the Coalition. The last time the Coalition attempted to rein in spending was 2014, when it was blocked in the Senate. For the following eight years in government, welfare spending rose relentlessly.

And even if a government was elected with a plan to reduce welfare spending, the Senate would be a problem. As I have discussed previously, changes to the method of electing the Senate (introduced in 2016 by the Coalition with the support of the Greens) have made it unlikely the conservative side of politics will achieve a majority in the foreseeable future.