please check the sources of extraordinary claims

The thing I hate most about having to go into the office for day job is being forced to listen to all the drivel that comes out of the mouths of my co-workers.

At this point I'm used to hearing… umm how can I put this nicely - I'm used to hearing bullshit unsubstantiated and groundless claims from them.

But today was particularly bad.

50% of voters rely on government for their main income

It's important to note that this statement was used in the context to justify the argument of Australia as a "welfare state," one of the standard liberal talking points.

I should make it clear that yes, since it was used in the context of liberal talking points, I will probably be sceptical of it by default and think it's bullshit. But that's where the power of having the data to back it up comes from!

So it was interesting to see that everyone in the room kinda just accepted it without really thinking: "Hey is that true? Where did that number come from?"

Well no… actually it was completely expected, but sad nonetheless.

So fine, I'll find the source myself.

A quick search on the claim leads me to two news articles: one from Sky News - okay not a great start, and another from the AFR - alright cool, that's slightly more reputable, maybe this claim really is true?

Haha, jk. We both know I wouldn't be writing this if that were the case.

Here's the article titled "More than 50pc of voters now rely on government for their main income" (archive.md link). The important section is right at the start.

More than half of voters now rely on governments for most of their income, through public-sector wages, welfare benefits or subsidies according to a new report by the Centre for Independent Studies, a right-of-centre liberal think tank.

Riiiiiight, so when they say "rely on government for their main income," they're not just looking at people on welfare, they're also looking at people working public sector jobs, or jobs in subsidised industries.

That is… pretty disingenuous when you consider it's used to justify calling Australia a welfare state.

No matter, we still need to find the numbers that resulted in this conclusion. Reading the rest of the article, the AFR also does not give any data to support that claim, nor do they give a link to the mentioned report. So… great, thanks guys, guess we still have some searching to do.

Thankfully, we don't have to look very far, just a little browsing on the website for the Centre for Independent Studies is enough to find "Leviathan on the Rampage: Government spending growth a threat to Australia’s economic future". Awesome pawsome! Let's go look at some data!

I want to outline these paragraphs in particular as relevant to the claims.

Finally, society’s attitudes have shifted in favour of more government spending and taxation as an increasing proportion of the population becomes directly dependent on government either for employment or cash and in-kind benefits.

As we shall see later in this report, more than 30% of the work force is now employed either in the public sector or in activities heavily dependent on government payments. This dependency has taken a new turn in recent years with the federal government advocating and directly funding wage increases for some non-government service providers. This is not to deny that many of these workers perform useful and sometimes vital services for the rest of the population and are motivated by high ideals of service. But they also share a vested interest in defending big government and high taxation through the political system, trade unions and other organized activity.

When we add public and quasi-public employment to the substantial part of the population that relies heavily on government welfare payments for their income, it is likely that more than half of voters rely on government for most of their income. This dependence poses a formidable opposition for any politician trying to curb the growth in public expenditure. Although the proportion of voters without the same dependence on government is also substantial, they are a much more disparate force. The winners from big government are concentrated and vocal; the losers diffuse and docile.

So about this "30% of the work force is now employed either in the public sector or in activities heavily dependent on government payments" statement? That is a number, and numbers are usually data that we can look at! It comes from Figure 7 which shows that employment in these industry groups, which represented 26.2% of total employment in February 2013, increased their share to 28.1% in 2019 and 31.3% in February 2025.

The "industry groups" referenced are public administration and safety; education and training; and health care and social assistance.

The report doesn't actually break down what's included in each category or cite the specific data source (though it mentions using "labour force data classified by industry"). 30% does seem like it could be believable to me, but I'm not convinced since it's lacking transparency about:

• Exactly what jobs/sectors are included in these categories
• How they determined these represent "activities heavily dependent on government payments"
• Whether any adjustments were made to exclude private sector workers

But back to the main claim at hand. I cannot find any data or calculation in the report that supports the assertion of "more than half of voters rely on government for most of their income." The author simply states it as a logical conclusion: "When we add public and quasi-public employment to the substantial part of the population that relies heavily on government welfare payments for their income, it is likely that more than half of voters rely on government for most of their income."

This is literally just speculation.

I'm sorry, but that's not good enough, especially when 30 of that 50 percent of that is still a questionable number.

Also, side note: it may seem like it, but I don't actually hate my co-workers. Thinking what you're telling me is stupid and dumb without anything to back it up is a common experience for me with anyone (as I think it probably should be for you as well to be honest) even when talking to the people closet to me. It just so happens that spending a large portion of time around these fuckers (by virtue of job) means it's more likely I hear stuff from them.