Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has doubled down on his pledge to restrict access to a wide range of taxpayer-funded welfare payments to Australian citizens, arguing the current system is unfair to Australians who fund it through their taxes.

Describing the proposal as “a no-brainer”, Mr Taylor said Australia should encourage migrants to become citizens before receiving access to many government-funded welfare programs, framing citizenship as a privilege that should carry tangible benefits.

The proposal forms part of the Coalition’s broader “Australians First” agenda unveiled during Mr Taylor’s Budget Reply speech, where he argued that the taxes paid by Australian workers should primarily support Australian citizens.

“If you commit to Australia, then Australia will commit to you,” Mr Taylor told Parliament, saying the policy was designed to restore what he described as the traditional principle that citizenship should unlock access to taxpayer-funded benefits.

Under the Coalition proposal, future access to 17 welfare payments and benefits—including JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and the Family Tax Benefit—would be limited to Australian citizens. The same principle would also apply to future access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and the First Home Buyer 5% Deposit Scheme. Existing recipients would retain their entitlements under grandfathering provisions, while humanitarian and compassionate visa holders would remain exempt.

Mr Taylor argues the policy is intended to strengthen the value of Australian citizenship rather than discourage migration.

According to the Opposition Leader, permanent residents would continue to have a pathway to citizenship, but the Coalition believes major welfare payments should become available only after migrants formally become Australians. He says this creates a stronger incentive for newcomers to integrate, commit to the country and complete the citizenship process.

The Coalition has also linked the proposal to concerns about government spending and cost-of-living pressures.

Mr Taylor argues that Australia is facing increasing pressure on public finances through rising debt, growing demand for social services and continued population growth. Restricting welfare eligibility, he says, would save taxpayers billions of dollars while ensuring limited government resources are directed towards Australian citizens first.

The welfare proposal sits alongside several other major Coalition commitments announced in the Budget Reply.

Those include capping net overseas migration according to the number of homes being built each year, establishing a $5 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund, introducing inflation indexation for income tax brackets, creating a Future Generations Fund to reduce government debt and tightening visa compliance through stronger action against overstayers.

Supporters of the policy argue that Australian citizenship should carry practical advantages beyond voting rights and obtaining an Australian passport.

They contend that taxpayers expect government-funded welfare to prioritise people who have made a permanent commitment to Australia, particularly during a period of continuing cost-of-living pressures and pressure on housing, healthcare and disability services.

Critics, however, argue the issue is more complicated.

The Albanese government has responded by noting that many permanent residents already face waiting periods before becoming eligible for Commonwealth benefits and that the Coalition’s rhetoric risks overstating the level of welfare available to newly arrived migrants. Ministers have also argued that permanent residents contribute through income tax, GST and other taxes while living and working in Australia.

Migrant advocacy organisations have likewise expressed concern that restricting access to future welfare payments could make Australia less attractive to skilled workers who often spend several years as permanent residents before becoming eligible for citizenship.

Mr Taylor rejects that criticism, insisting the policy is not aimed at discouraging skilled migration.

In interviews following his Budget Reply speech, he argued that people are not being forced to surrender existing citizenships or prevented from settling in Australia. Rather, he said, the Coalition wants citizenship itself to become more meaningful by linking it to important public benefits.

The announcement has also drawn political attention because of its similarities to long-standing policy positions advocated by One Nation.

Former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce remarked that parts of the Coalition’s platform closely resemble policies One Nation has promoted for years, particularly in relation to migration levels and welfare eligibility. Mr Taylor has rejected suggestions that the Coalition is merely copying another party, saying the measures are based on what he believes Australians expect from government.

Political analysts say the proposal reflects the Coalition’s effort to sharpen the contrast with Labor on migration, government spending and national identity following its leadership change earlier this year.

By placing citizenship at the centre of welfare eligibility, the Opposition is seeking to present a clear philosophical difference between the two major parties ahead of the next federal election.

Whether the proposal ultimately becomes law would depend on the Coalition winning government and securing parliamentary support for the necessary legislation.

For now, however, Mr Taylor’s welfare proposal has become one of the defining elements of his emerging leadership, generating strong support among those who believe citizenship should carry greater practical value while prompting criticism from opponents who argue Australia benefits from supporting permanent residents who contribute to the country’s economy long before they formally become citizens.