Over 1,000 affected! Government admits massive welfare blunder—are you at risk?
- Replies 0
Government system are expected to function smoothly, especially when they impact society’s most vulnerable.
But when technology fails, the consequences can be far-reaching—and in some cases, devastating.
A long-standing issue within a key welfare program has now come under intense scrutiny, with revelations of critical failures that affected thousands of Australians.
There were growing calls to scrap the digital system that determined when Centrelink recipients lost payments due to unmet mutual obligations, after a series of IT failures wrongly impacted over 1,000 people.
The payment cancellations linked to mutual obligations had been halted while investigations continued into the potentially unlawful terminations that took place between 2018 and 2024.
Employment and Workplace Relations department secretary Natalie James apologised during a Senate estimates hearing, saying she was ‘incredibly sorry’ for not identifying the issues sooner.
Both the delay in rectifying payments and the belated apologies were criticised as inadequate during the meeting.
Among the 1,326 individuals affected under the Targeted Compliance Framework (TCF), 10 had died before Services Australia attempted to back-pay them 12 weeks after identifying the errors.
The first IT failure had been detected in 2020, but its full impact was not recognised until July 2023, two months before 1,165 affected recipients were informed.
‘A big, complex IT system will often not work in the way you anticipate,’ James stated.
The glitches caused some recipients to have their payments reduced or cancelled entirely, requiring them to reapply after a four-week waiting period.
A second and third system failure in 2024 left some people in the TCF ‘penalty zone’, pausing their payments, with notifications only sent in January and July of that year.
Some of those affected had also been caught in the 2020 errors, only learning about the issue when they were reimbursed rather than when the government first recognised the mistake.
Queensland Senator Penny Allman-Payne questioned whether the department investigated whether the 10 deceased individuals had died due to the financial hardship caused by the errors.
‘I would have thought that, if you have a system that services vulnerable people and you become aware that this is the case, you would at least want to understand whether that was a contributing factor, particularly given robodebt,’ she said.
Employment and Workplace Relations department deputy secretary Tania Rishniw responded that it would have been ‘inappropriate for us to go into Services Australia data and interrogate it’.
While there was no official record indicating that the deaths were self-inflicted, she acknowledged that it could not be ruled out.
‘There were no family or next of kin that had contacted Services Australia to raise particular concerns,’ she added.
Allman-Payne also pressed for answers on what steps had been taken to assess the welfare risks to those impacted in the period between identifying the issues and notifying recipients.
‘We’re talking about people who are at risk of homelessness, not able to have essential medications and at risk of destitution—we’ve heard that large numbers of these people are First Nations,’ she said.
James admitted she did not have the relevant details at hand to answer the question.
As the official responsible for overseeing the TCF process, she issued an apology on behalf of the department.
‘I absolutely and unreservedly apologise on behalf of the department that we cannot have full confidence in this system delivering what it’s intended to deliver,’ she said.
‘It’s not acceptable, and it is my responsibility.’
James confirmed that multiple payment cancellations had been paused, as the process used to enact them was ‘not lawful’.
However, she stated that she was still required to administer the system unless the ongoing review determined that the TCF was not legally viable.
‘People are entitled to expect better from the government,’ she said.
She acknowledged that the situation had been mishandled, with poor communication exacerbating the problem.
‘I am incredibly sorry for the impact that this has had on individuals and I apologise for the fact that we hadn’t identified these things earlier and acted on them more quickly.’
In a previous story, a brain tumour survivor spoke out after Centrelink cut off their support payments while they were still recovering.
Their experience highlights the ongoing struggles vulnerable Australians face when welfare systems fail.
Read more about their fight for financial stability and the impact of these errors.
With the government now reviewing the system, do you think it should be fixed or scrapped entirely? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
But when technology fails, the consequences can be far-reaching—and in some cases, devastating.
A long-standing issue within a key welfare program has now come under intense scrutiny, with revelations of critical failures that affected thousands of Australians.
There were growing calls to scrap the digital system that determined when Centrelink recipients lost payments due to unmet mutual obligations, after a series of IT failures wrongly impacted over 1,000 people.
The payment cancellations linked to mutual obligations had been halted while investigations continued into the potentially unlawful terminations that took place between 2018 and 2024.
Employment and Workplace Relations department secretary Natalie James apologised during a Senate estimates hearing, saying she was ‘incredibly sorry’ for not identifying the issues sooner.
Both the delay in rectifying payments and the belated apologies were criticised as inadequate during the meeting.
Among the 1,326 individuals affected under the Targeted Compliance Framework (TCF), 10 had died before Services Australia attempted to back-pay them 12 weeks after identifying the errors.
The first IT failure had been detected in 2020, but its full impact was not recognised until July 2023, two months before 1,165 affected recipients were informed.
‘A big, complex IT system will often not work in the way you anticipate,’ James stated.
The glitches caused some recipients to have their payments reduced or cancelled entirely, requiring them to reapply after a four-week waiting period.
A second and third system failure in 2024 left some people in the TCF ‘penalty zone’, pausing their payments, with notifications only sent in January and July of that year.
Some of those affected had also been caught in the 2020 errors, only learning about the issue when they were reimbursed rather than when the government first recognised the mistake.
Queensland Senator Penny Allman-Payne questioned whether the department investigated whether the 10 deceased individuals had died due to the financial hardship caused by the errors.
‘I would have thought that, if you have a system that services vulnerable people and you become aware that this is the case, you would at least want to understand whether that was a contributing factor, particularly given robodebt,’ she said.
Employment and Workplace Relations department deputy secretary Tania Rishniw responded that it would have been ‘inappropriate for us to go into Services Australia data and interrogate it’.
While there was no official record indicating that the deaths were self-inflicted, she acknowledged that it could not be ruled out.
‘There were no family or next of kin that had contacted Services Australia to raise particular concerns,’ she added.
Allman-Payne also pressed for answers on what steps had been taken to assess the welfare risks to those impacted in the period between identifying the issues and notifying recipients.
‘We’re talking about people who are at risk of homelessness, not able to have essential medications and at risk of destitution—we’ve heard that large numbers of these people are First Nations,’ she said.
James admitted she did not have the relevant details at hand to answer the question.
As the official responsible for overseeing the TCF process, she issued an apology on behalf of the department.
‘I absolutely and unreservedly apologise on behalf of the department that we cannot have full confidence in this system delivering what it’s intended to deliver,’ she said.
‘It’s not acceptable, and it is my responsibility.’
James confirmed that multiple payment cancellations had been paused, as the process used to enact them was ‘not lawful’.
However, she stated that she was still required to administer the system unless the ongoing review determined that the TCF was not legally viable.
‘People are entitled to expect better from the government,’ she said.
She acknowledged that the situation had been mishandled, with poor communication exacerbating the problem.
‘I am incredibly sorry for the impact that this has had on individuals and I apologise for the fact that we hadn’t identified these things earlier and acted on them more quickly.’
In a previous story, a brain tumour survivor spoke out after Centrelink cut off their support payments while they were still recovering.
Their experience highlights the ongoing struggles vulnerable Australians face when welfare systems fail.
Read more about their fight for financial stability and the impact of these errors.
With the government now reviewing the system, do you think it should be fixed or scrapped entirely? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
