Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has entered the national debate over welfare access for permanent residents, accusing the Liberal Party of targeting older Australians from multicultural communities through its proposal to restrict some payments to citizens.
“The Liberal Party’s proposal to cut off long-term permanent residents from the aged pension is harmful,” Allan said.
“It targets older Australians from multicultural communities. Hard-working Australians that have contributed decades to our great state.”
“As Premier, I’ll continue to fight against these divisive policies, and stand for giving every Victorian a fair go.”
Her intervention sharpens a dispute that has moved quickly from federal budget politics into multicultural Australia. Opposition Leader Angus Taylor used the Coalition’s Budget response to argue that welfare should be more closely tied to citizenship, while maintaining that existing permanent residents would be protected through grandfathering arrangements.
During an online briefing with multicultural media, Taylor defended the policy by saying the Coalition did not want to alter arrangements for people already in Australia.
“We don’t want to change anything for people who have already come to Australia, permanent migrants, and also those who have come on humanitarian programmes,” Taylor said. He said health, childcare and aged care programmes would remain available, while welfare access for future skilled migrants should come “over time”.
Taylor also argued that Australia has “a very fast path to citizenship”, saying people who settle permanently should seriously consider becoming citizens. “Citizenship is really important as people come to Australia and commit to Australia,” he said.
The policy has drawn criticism from migrant communities because permanent residents already live and work in Australia, pay income tax, Medicare levies and GST, and in many cases have spent decades raising families and running businesses here. Critics argue that linking basic support to citizenship ignores the practical reality facing migrants from countries that do not allow dual citizenship, including India and China.
That concern was raised directly during the same briefing, when Taylor was asked whether dual citizens were more committed to Australia than permanent residents who could not take citizenship without giving up rights in their country of birth. Taylor said the Coalition remained “absolutely committed to dual citizenship” and accepted that dual citizens could be “absolutely committed to Australia”.
Allan’s comments place Victoria firmly on the other side of the argument. Her framing is direct: this is not an abstract debate about eligibility rules, but a policy that could affect older migrants who have worked, paid taxes and contributed to communities for years.
The Victorian Government has also published criticism of the proposal, saying it would affect long-time permanent residents rather than tourists or temporary visa holders, who are already ineligible for the aged pension.
The debate is politically sensitive in Victoria, where multicultural communities are central to seats across Melbourne’s west, north and south-east. Indian, Chinese, Sri Lankan, Filipino, Vietnamese and Nepalese communities include many families where older parents remain permanent residents for cultural, legal or practical reasons.
The debate now centres on a fundamental question: should access to the aged pension depend on citizenship status, or should long-term permanent residents who have spent decades working and paying taxes in Australia receive the same support as citizens?
For Indian migrants, the issue is especially acute. India does not allow dual citizenship in the same way Australia does, meaning many Indian-born permanent residents must surrender Indian citizenship if they become Australian citizens. That can affect property rights, inheritance issues, pension arrangements and family obligations in India.
The Coalition has sought to present the policy as a citizenship measure rather than a migrant penalty. Taylor told multicultural media the party wanted to encourage people who make Australia their permanent home to take up citizenship, while protecting those already in the country.
But Allan’s intervention shows Labor will frame the proposal differently: as a cut aimed at multicultural communities, and particularly older migrants who may have assumed permanent residency gave them long-term security after years of contribution.
The debate now centres on a fundamental question: should access to the aged pension depend on citizenship status, or should long-term permanent residents who have spent decades working and paying taxes in Australia receive the same support as citizens?
That distinction may matter politically. The Coalition is trying to speak to voters worried about housing pressure, welfare sustainability and migration numbers. Labor, meanwhile, is seeking to cast the policy as divisive and harmful to migrant communities that have helped build modern Australia.
Allan’s comments suggest the issue will not remain confined to Canberra. In Victoria, where permanent residents form part of the social and economic fabric of suburbs across the state, the politics of the proposal could be felt sharply.
The central question is now clear: should the aged pension and other welfare supports be treated as privileges of citizenship, or as part of the safety net for people who have lived, worked and paid taxes in Australia for years? For Allan, permanent residents who helped build Victoria deserve fairness, not exclusion.
Support independent community journalism. Support The Indian Sun.
Follow The Indian Sun on X | Instagram | Facebook
Support Independent Community Journalism
Dear Reader,The Indian Sun exists for one reason: to tell stories that might otherwise go unheard.
We report on local councils, state politics, small businesses and cultural festivals. We focus on the Indian diaspora and the wider multicultural community with care, balance and accountability. We publish in print and online, send regular newsletters and produce video content. We also run media training programs to help community organisations share their own stories.
We operate independently.
Community journalism does not have the backing of large media corporations. Advertising revenue fluctuates. Platform algorithms change. Costs continue to rise. Yet the need for credible, grounded reporting in a multicultural Australia has never been greater.
When you support The Indian Sun, you support:
• Independent reporting on issues affecting migrant communities
• Coverage of local and state decisions that shape daily life
• A platform for small businesses and community groups
• Media training that builds skills within the community
• Journalism accountable to readers
We cannot cover everything, but we work to cover what matters.
If you value thoughtful reporting that reflects Australia’s diversity, we invite you to contribute. Every donation helps us maintain the quality and consistency of our work.
Please consider making a contribution today.
Thank you for your support.
The Indian Sun Team
