Services Australia is facing accusations of inflating its payment accuracy ratings in recent reports.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has released new figures revealing a concerning reality: nearly one in five individuals receiving welfare support payments are being paid incorrectly.

This revelation has prompted the government watchdog to recommend that Services Australia adopt more 'reliable' methods for reporting.

The audit report also shed light on another concerning statistic. One in four welfare claims did not meet the processing deadlines set by the agency itself. This failure to adhere to internal timelines further undermines Services Australia's claims of effective management.

At the heart of the audit was a critical question: Is the agency responsible for Centrelink centres truly delivering 'the right payment at the right time' to recipients?

The findings not only cast doubt on the agency's reporting accuracy but also raise concerns about the overall efficiency of the welfare payment system.

The Australian National Audit Office has found that approximately one out of every five payments made to Centrelink recipients contains errors, despite Services Australia giving itself high ratings for its performance. Credit: Shutterstock.

Services Australia and its operational procedures have come under intense scrutiny in the wake of scathing revelations from the Royal Commission investigating the Robodebt scheme, which revealed the agency's unlawful practice of issuing debts through the controversial 'income averaging' method.

In a report unveiled recently, the ANAO indicated that the welfare agency touted an impressive 98.9 per cent accuracy rate in disbursing support payments.

However, an independent inquiry conducted by the audit office painted a starkly different picture, pegging the accuracy rate at a notably lower 81.4 per cent.

Within this recalibrated statistic, the report dissected the numbers further: a substantial 13.5 per cent of the payments were identified as overpayments, while 5 per cent represented instances where welfare recipients were underpaid.

The huge difference is said to be due to Service Australia's reporting methodology, criticised as 'biased and incomplete' by the Department of Social Services in early 2021.

The agency excludes inaccurate payments resulting from errors on the recipient's end from its final reported statistics. For instance, if a recipient neglects to communicate changes in their circumstances to Services Australia, leading to an erroneous payment, such instances are not factored into the final percentage calculation.

In the fiscal year 2021-22, underpayments amounted to $514 million.

Meanwhile, overpayments totalled a staggering $7.2 billion, constituting approximately six per cent of the total disbursements. A closer look at these numbers revealed that $468.8 million stemmed from changes in a partner's income.

The report also found that the timeliness of payments was a concern, claiming that the change in how Services Australia reports timeliness has introduced a noticeable bias into the process.

In 2020, there was a remarkable surge in reported timeliness results by Services Australia. However, this failed to mirror any actual performance improvement, raising questions about the reliability of the reports from the agency.

With these findings, the ANAO report has put forth a recommendation for Services Australia: to develop a performance measure that is both 'reliable and unbiased'.

This measure, as suggested, should encompass not only statistics within the agency's control—such as administrative errors—but also those that fall within its sphere of influence, such as recipient fraud or mistakes.

However, a note emerged from the agency itself, opposing the recommendation. The agency argued against incorporating recipient-based errors into its reporting, deeming them irrelevant to assessing Service Australia's administrative performance.

Key Takeaways

• Services Australia has been accused of inaccurately reporting its payment accuracy to recipients, with an audit revealing nearly one in five of those receiving welfare support payments are being paid incorrectly.
• The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report revealed a discrepancy between Services Australia's claimed accuracy rate of 98.9 per cent and the audit office's finding of 81.4 per cent.
• The report also raised concerns about the timeliness of payments, highlighting that one in four welfare claims were not processed within the agency's own deadlines.
• Following the report, Services Australia disagreed with the recommendation to develop a more reliable and unbiased performance measure, as it did not consider recipient-based errors to be relevant to its administrative performance.

Members, what do you think about these findings? Have you personally faced issues with Centrelink payments? How did you handle it? It’s alarming to think of how many recipients have been unknowingly underpaid. Share your experiences with us in the comments section below.

 

[mylittletibbies]

Wow it must be tough being perfect. I worked for Centrelink for 15 years on the front line in many roles. Staff rely on the correct information being provided by the client computer programs work out the payment. It’s not a person adding it up on a piece of paper. Staff do their best, put up with lots of abuse and threats but keep coming back to work because they want to help. Centrelink is a huge system which provides a service to just about every Australian. How can you expect a system that big to be perfect. It’s always let’s bash Centrelink dimwits. Let’s forget that they leave their families to provide money services social work support following floods or fire. Staff working closely with homeless those experiencing domestic violence mental health young people in crisis. No let’s just bash the dimwits because they are not perfect

If you had seen some if my previous posts you would be aware that I had commented that it is not the front desk staff that are to blame, but the powers on high.
In fact when I was being dragged over the coals once for being a Centrelink fraud by some knobs from on high, it was a young lass in the office who discovered that the information I had provided had been put on another file in error. I was very grateful to her, she was a lit smarter than them.
Sorry if I offended you, I know you have a thankless job. I will be a bit clearer in future

 

[Alayne]

An elderly person I know recently presented to Centrelink as they had sold their home & car & moved in with their child. They last presented their bank statement 10 yr ago & Centrelink said that back payments were due as the statement showed an increase in the balance. The staff member said they would query this as it was 10 yr ago. When the child asked if the parent should have produced statements in the interim, the staff member said that you don't have to, but it was advised. People are not informed of this.

 

[janj]

After waiting for 7 months I would just like to see an outcome if the are going to approve my claim or not

That happened to us, not seven months but a few keep ringing them up they soon sort it. If they answer phone. Or your call is important to us lol

 

[Judy HB]

A security breach in Centrelink has resulted in my husband’s bank account number being changed and a loan being taken out (on line) and paid into a fraudulent account. Subsequent pension payments were also redirected to that account. Centrelink advised us that we are responsible for repayment of the loan, and pension payments are being reduced by $85 per fortnight until it is fully repaid. We were told by Centrelink staff (who were very helpful when we met with them) that there are many such incidences. However, proving that we did not make or authorise the change to the bank account number registered with Centrelink is apparently impossible, so we just keep on receiving a reduced pension to repay a debt that is not ours.

Take it further, get the omsbudsman involved

 

[darrellh]

My husband and I have had no problems going into Centrelink with information and documents without appointments and they take it everytime. I cannot understand why they would not once you are in their premises. We must be the lucky ones, they have always been very polite and quick as we get there first thing in the morning and they are very helpful. Likewise if we have to ring, sometimes a wait but never extra long must just be rjnging a t the right time. So far no problems .
I am sorry everyone doesn't get the same level of service!

 

[Jolliffe]

Services Australia is facing accusations of inflating its payment accuracy ratings in recent reports.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has released new figures revealing a concerning reality: nearly one in five individuals receiving welfare support payments are being paid incorrectly.

This revelation has prompted the government watchdog to recommend that Services Australia adopt more 'reliable' methods for reporting.

The audit report also shed light on another concerning statistic. One in four welfare claims did not meet the processing deadlines set by the agency itself. This failure to adhere to internal timelines further undermines Services Australia's claims of effective management.

At the heart of the audit was a critical question: Is the agency responsible for Centrelink centres truly delivering 'the right payment at the right time' to recipients?

The findings not only cast doubt on the agency's reporting accuracy but also raise concerns about the overall efficiency of the welfare payment system.

View attachment 28853

The Australian National Audit Office has found that approximately one out of every five payments made to Centrelink recipients contains errors, despite Services Australia giving itself high ratings for its performance. Credit: Shutterstock.

Services Australia and its operational procedures have come under intense scrutiny in the wake of scathing revelations from the Royal Commission investigating the Robodebt scheme, which revealed the agency's unlawful practice of issuing debts through the controversial 'income averaging' method.

In a report unveiled recently, the ANAO indicated that the welfare agency touted an impressive 98.9 per cent accuracy rate in disbursing support payments.

However, an independent inquiry conducted by the audit office painted a starkly different picture, pegging the accuracy rate at a notably lower 81.4 per cent.

Within this recalibrated statistic, the report dissected the numbers further: a substantial 13.5 per cent of the payments were identified as overpayments, while 5 per cent represented instances where welfare recipients were underpaid.

The huge difference is said to be due to Service Australia's reporting methodology, criticised as 'biased and incomplete' by the Department of Social Services in early 2021.

The agency excludes inaccurate payments resulting from errors on the recipient's end from its final reported statistics. For instance, if a recipient neglects to communicate changes in their circumstances to Services Australia, leading to an erroneous payment, such instances are not factored into the final percentage calculation.

In the fiscal year 2021-22, underpayments amounted to $514 million.

Meanwhile, overpayments totalled a staggering $7.2 billion, constituting approximately six per cent of the total disbursements. A closer look at these numbers revealed that $468.8 million stemmed from changes in a partner's income.

The report also found that the timeliness of payments was a concern, claiming that the change in how Services Australia reports timeliness has introduced a noticeable bias into the process.

In 2020, there was a remarkable surge in reported timeliness results by Services Australia. However, this failed to mirror any actual performance improvement, raising questions about the reliability of the reports from the agency.

With these findings, the ANAO report has put forth a recommendation for Services Australia: to develop a performance measure that is both 'reliable and unbiased'.

This measure, as suggested, should encompass not only statistics within the agency's control—such as administrative errors—but also those that fall within its sphere of influence, such as recipient fraud or mistakes.

However, a note emerged from the agency itself, opposing the recommendation. The agency argued against incorporating recipient-based errors into its reporting, deeming them irrelevant to assessing Service Australia's administrative performance.

Key Takeaways

• Services Australia has been accused of inaccurately reporting its payment accuracy to recipients, with an audit revealing nearly one in five of those receiving welfare support payments are being paid incorrectly.
• The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report revealed a discrepancy between Services Australia's claimed accuracy rate of 98.9 per cent and the audit office's finding of 81.4 per cent.
• The report also raised concerns about the timeliness of payments, highlighting that one in four welfare claims were not processed within the agency's own deadlines.
• Following the report, Services Australia disagreed with the recommendation to develop a more reliable and unbiased performance measure, as it did not consider recipient-based errors to be relevant to its administrative performance.

Members, what do you think about these findings? Have you personally faced issues with Centrelink payments? How did you handle it? It’s alarming to think of how many recipients have been unknowingly underpaid. Share your experiences with us in the comments section below.

Don’t talk to me about Centrelink as I am older then my husband who is 64 years old and I am 75 my husband is on a disability pension we don’t get the senior discount on his tax’s we don’t get to earn the extra money senior can earn.my husband is a very sick man he will never work again yes we do get help from I care People who have this cancer get put on the back burner goverments new about this in 1966 and they still let the building material be used into the 90 I wouldn’t wish what we are going through on anyone.

 

[Littleboy8]

Did you get any legal advice on this matter, sounds a bit rough to me.
How long had you been receiving payments, have you ever changed your account number before, there are many things that could make a case. Also are you in the habit of taking out loans on the internet.
Of course I don't know what your circumstances are, but if it was me I would be taking it further as I could prove that I haven't had a loan of
any kind for so long I can't remember, have only changed bank accounts when we have moved
house, etc.
So sorry this has happened to you.

Try the Centrelink ombudsman

 

[samtumino]

I am not the least surprised, I have been dealing with Centrelink for 46 years since my daughter was born and it has been one thing after the other.
They don't listen, continually stuff up, overpay, underpay and on and on it goes. Every time I have had to deal with them they have been in the wrong.
I went to business college when I was 15 and did very well, had many top notch secretarial jobs, worked my way up to executive assistant to the human resources manager of a large mining company. Also kept the books for my stepfathers very large cleaning company.
I am grateful for all this experience as it has kept me in a good position to deal with the dimwits at Centrelink.
However what about the people who haven't had the benefit of a good education it must be extremely difficult for them.

Initially I thought Centrelink was there to assist and help the average person to navigate this confusing area. I was very wrong, they are there to frustrate people and make it as difficult as possible so that in the end they give up and miss out on what would be their right to have.

 

[Littleboy8]

My husband and I have had no problems going into Centrelink with information and documents without appointments and they take it everytime. I cannot understand why they would not once you are in their premises. We must be the lucky ones, they have always been very polite and quick as we get there first thing in the morning and they are very helpful. Likewise if we have to ring, sometimes a wait but never extra long must just be rjnging a t the right time. So far no problems .
I am sorry everyone doesn't get the same level of service!

I’m with you always polite and i always ring at 9.00 on the dot wait time usually about 1/2 hour

 

[Rainy]

Wow it must be tough being perfect. I worked for Centrelink for 15 years on the front line in many roles. Staff rely on the correct information being provided by the client computer programs work out the payment. It’s not a person adding it up on a piece of paper. Staff do their best, put up with lots of abuse and threats but keep coming back to work because they want to help. Centrelink is a huge system which provides a service to just about every Australian. How can you expect a system that big to be perfect. It’s always let’s bash Centrelink dimwits. Let’s forget that they leave their families to provide money services social work support following floods or fire. Staff working closely with homeless those experiencing domestic violence mental health young people in crisis. No let’s just bash the dimwits because they are not perfect

I am not questioning the humanity of those who work at Centrelink. Indeed, a computer is only as good as the humanly programmed information it receives. To then turn around and blame the computer, well that is so Orwellian. We don't expect perfection, just accountability and consistency. That isn't too much to ask. Is it? CL should stop expecting the worst from the public by changing the voice message preamble. Accusing the public of barbaric interpersonal behaviour before they have even spoken a word, well that's going to work, isn't it!

 

[Gsr]

Yesterday I spent over an hour listening to crappy music waiting for an answer when I rang them, then another 40 minutes on the phone with two different people, who at least spoke English enough that I could understand them, bonus me, however they were no help to solving the issue I rang about. My grandson has applied for abstudy as he has secured a job as a low paid apprentice. He has been living in our care for over four years so needs our income records as part of his claim. He got a one time code for us to use to give access to our records but it didn’t work so I rang to complain, well it only works for 24 hours she said, please explain why I tried it twice within that 24 hours and was told it was invalid I said. All the excuses in the world and no we can’t get another code we now have to print out or fill out forms online and submit. To me this is a stalling tactic in hopes we can’t be bothered or by the time we do it the start date of the payment can be delayed. I’m sure this is why there are so many hurdles placed in front of anyone applying for benefits, just look at the extra money the government can waste giving themselves unearned pay rises by delaying everyone’s support payment start dates. Have been dealing with this system for over seven years and have rarely had any good experiences either by phone or person to person. The supposed improvement to the mygov website in my opinion was a 100% disimprovement, it is so hard to even do anything on now it is ridiculous.

 

[Alex]

Services Australia is facing accusations of inflating its payment accuracy ratings in recent reports.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has released new figures revealing a concerning reality: nearly one in five individuals receiving welfare support payments are being paid incorrectly.

This revelation has prompted the government watchdog to recommend that Services Australia adopt more 'reliable' methods for reporting.

The audit report also shed light on another concerning statistic. One in four welfare claims did not meet the processing deadlines set by the agency itself. This failure to adhere to internal timelines further undermines Services Australia's claims of effective management.

At the heart of the audit was a critical question: Is the agency responsible for Centrelink centres truly delivering 'the right payment at the right time' to recipients?

The findings not only cast doubt on the agency's reporting accuracy but also raise concerns about the overall efficiency of the welfare payment system.

View attachment 28853

The Australian National Audit Office has found that approximately one out of every five payments made to Centrelink recipients contains errors, despite Services Australia giving itself high ratings for its performance. Credit: Shutterstock.

Services Australia and its operational procedures have come under intense scrutiny in the wake of scathing revelations from the Royal Commission investigating the Robodebt scheme, which revealed the agency's unlawful practice of issuing debts through the controversial 'income averaging' method.

In a report unveiled recently, the ANAO indicated that the welfare agency touted an impressive 98.9 per cent accuracy rate in disbursing support payments.

However, an independent inquiry conducted by the audit office painted a starkly different picture, pegging the accuracy rate at a notably lower 81.4 per cent.

Within this recalibrated statistic, the report dissected the numbers further: a substantial 13.5 per cent of the payments were identified as overpayments, while 5 per cent represented instances where welfare recipients were underpaid.

The huge difference is said to be due to Service Australia's reporting methodology, criticised as 'biased and incomplete' by the Department of Social Services in early 2021.

The agency excludes inaccurate payments resulting from errors on the recipient's end from its final reported statistics. For instance, if a recipient neglects to communicate changes in their circumstances to Services Australia, leading to an erroneous payment, such instances are not factored into the final percentage calculation.

In the fiscal year 2021-22, underpayments amounted to $514 million.

Meanwhile, overpayments totalled a staggering $7.2 billion, constituting approximately six per cent of the total disbursements. A closer look at these numbers revealed that $468.8 million stemmed from changes in a partner's income.

The report also found that the timeliness of payments was a concern, claiming that the change in how Services Australia reports timeliness has introduced a noticeable bias into the process.

In 2020, there was a remarkable surge in reported timeliness results by Services Australia. However, this failed to mirror any actual performance improvement, raising questions about the reliability of the reports from the agency.

With these findings, the ANAO report has put forth a recommendation for Services Australia: to develop a performance measure that is both 'reliable and unbiased'.

This measure, as suggested, should encompass not only statistics within the agency's control—such as administrative errors—but also those that fall within its sphere of influence, such as recipient fraud or mistakes.

However, a note emerged from the agency itself, opposing the recommendation. The agency argued against incorporating recipient-based errors into its reporting, deeming them irrelevant to assessing Service Australia's administrative performance.

Key Takeaways

• Services Australia has been accused of inaccurately reporting its payment accuracy to recipients, with an audit revealing nearly one in five of those receiving welfare support payments are being paid incorrectly.
• The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report revealed a discrepancy between Services Australia's claimed accuracy rate of 98.9 per cent and the audit office's finding of 81.4 per cent.
• The report also raised concerns about the timeliness of payments, highlighting that one in four welfare claims were not processed within the agency's own deadlines.
• Following the report, Services Australia disagreed with the recommendation to develop a more reliable and unbiased performance measure, as it did not consider recipient-based errors to be relevant to its administrative performance.

Members, what do you think about these findings? Have you personally faced issues with Centrelink payments? How did you handle it? It’s alarming to think of how many recipients have been unknowingly underpaid. Share your experiences with us in the comments section below.

I applied for the age pension in march still waiting after 54 years in the workforce and never out of work

 

[Littleboy8]

If you had seen some if my previous posts you would be aware that I had commented that it is not the front desk staff that are to blame, but the powers on high.
In fact when I was being dragged over the coals once for being a Centrelink fraud by some knobs from on high, it was a young lass in the office who discovered that the information I had provided had been put on another file in error. I was very grateful to her, she was a lit smarter than them.
Sorry if I offended you, I know you have a thankless job. I will be a bit clearer in future

Doesn’t hurt to say sorry good on you

 

[Rainy]

Yesterday I spent over an hour listening to crappy music waiting for an answer when I rang them, then another 40 minutes on the phone with two different people, who at least spoke English enough that I could understand them, bonus me, however they were no help to solving the issue I rang about. My grandson has applied for abstudy as he has secured a job as a low paid apprentice. He has been living in our care for over four years so needs our income records as part of his claim. He got a one time code for us to use to give access to our records but it didn’t work so I rang to complain, well it only works for 24 hours she said, please explain why I tried it twice within that 24 hours and was told it was invalid I said. All the excuses in the world and no we can’t get another code we now have to print out or fill out forms online and submit. To me this is a stalling tactic in hopes we can’t be bothered or by the time we do it the start date of the payment can be delayed. I’m sure this is why there are so many hurdles placed in front of anyone applying for benefits, just look at the extra money the government can waste giving themselves unearned pay rises by delaying everyone’s support payment start dates. Have been dealing with this system for over seven years and have rarely had any good experiences either by phone or person to person. The supposed improvement to the mygov website in my opinion was a 100% disimprovement, it is so hard to even do anything on now it is ridiculous.

Please send a copy of your ordeal to local MP. If enough of us stand up to be counted, maybe someone in Canberra will listen. Sorry you are having to deal with such behaviour.

 

[hcarol1]

Services Australia is facing accusations of inflating its payment accuracy ratings in recent reports.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has released new figures revealing a concerning reality: nearly one in five individuals receiving welfare support payments are being paid incorrectly.

This revelation has prompted the government watchdog to recommend that Services Australia adopt more 'reliable' methods for reporting.

The audit report also shed light on another concerning statistic. One in four welfare claims did not meet the processing deadlines set by the agency itself. This failure to adhere to internal timelines further undermines Services Australia's claims of effective management.

At the heart of the audit was a critical question: Is the agency responsible for Centrelink centres truly delivering 'the right payment at the right time' to recipients?

The findings not only cast doubt on the agency's reporting accuracy but also raise concerns about the overall efficiency of the welfare payment system.

View attachment 28853

The Australian National Audit Office has found that approximately one out of every five payments made to Centrelink recipients contains errors, despite Services Australia giving itself high ratings for its performance. Credit: Shutterstock.

Services Australia and its operational procedures have come under intense scrutiny in the wake of scathing revelations from the Royal Commission investigating the Robodebt scheme, which revealed the agency's unlawful practice of issuing debts through the controversial 'income averaging' method.

In a report unveiled recently, the ANAO indicated that the welfare agency touted an impressive 98.9 per cent accuracy rate in disbursing support payments.

However, an independent inquiry conducted by the audit office painted a starkly different picture, pegging the accuracy rate at a notably lower 81.4 per cent.

Within this recalibrated statistic, the report dissected the numbers further: a substantial 13.5 per cent of the payments were identified as overpayments, while 5 per cent represented instances where welfare recipients were underpaid.

The huge difference is said to be due to Service Australia's reporting methodology, criticised as 'biased and incomplete' by the Department of Social Services in early 2021.

The agency excludes inaccurate payments resulting from errors on the recipient's end from its final reported statistics. For instance, if a recipient neglects to communicate changes in their circumstances to Services Australia, leading to an erroneous payment, such instances are not factored into the final percentage calculation.

In the fiscal year 2021-22, underpayments amounted to $514 million.

Meanwhile, overpayments totalled a staggering $7.2 billion, constituting approximately six per cent of the total disbursements. A closer look at these numbers revealed that $468.8 million stemmed from changes in a partner's income.

The report also found that the timeliness of payments was a concern, claiming that the change in how Services Australia reports timeliness has introduced a noticeable bias into the process.

In 2020, there was a remarkable surge in reported timeliness results by Services Australia. However, this failed to mirror any actual performance improvement, raising questions about the reliability of the reports from the agency.

With these findings, the ANAO report has put forth a recommendation for Services Australia: to develop a performance measure that is both 'reliable and unbiased'.

This measure, as suggested, should encompass not only statistics within the agency's control—such as administrative errors—but also those that fall within its sphere of influence, such as recipient fraud or mistakes.

However, a note emerged from the agency itself, opposing the recommendation. The agency argued against incorporating recipient-based errors into its reporting, deeming them irrelevant to assessing Service Australia's administrative performance.

Key Takeaways

• Services Australia has been accused of inaccurately reporting its payment accuracy to recipients, with an audit revealing nearly one in five of those receiving welfare support payments are being paid incorrectly.
• The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report revealed a discrepancy between Services Australia's claimed accuracy rate of 98.9 per cent and the audit office's finding of 81.4 per cent.
• The report also raised concerns about the timeliness of payments, highlighting that one in four welfare claims were not processed within the agency's own deadlines.
• Following the report, Services Australia disagreed with the recommendation to develop a more reliable and unbiased performance measure, as it did not consider recipient-based errors to be relevant to its administrative performance.

Members, what do you think about these findings? Have you personally faced issues with Centrelink payments? How did you handle it? It’s alarming to think of how many recipients have been unknowingly underpaid. Share your experiences with us in the comments section below.

In 2023 February I applied for single pension as I had renovated my house so I could separate under one roof My application I was told was put on priority in July I have never heard back since then.I am struggling to keep my half of the house and may have to just walk away
Carol Harris [email protected]
0402081213
Can anyone help?

 

[Rainy]

Well, I am on a diet. So far so good.

 

[Littleboy8]

In 2023 February I applied for single pension as I had renovated my house so I could separate under one roof My application I was told was put on priority in July I have never heard back since then.I am struggling to keep my half of the house and may have to just walk away
Carol Harris [email protected]
0402081213
Can anyone help?

Ombudsman for you look it up on website

 

[mylittletibbies]

In 2023 February I applied for single pension as I had renovated my house so I could separate under one roof My application I was told was put on priority in July I have never heard back since then.I am struggling to keep my half of the house and may have to just walk away
Carol Harris [email protected]
0402081213
Can anyone help?

Go to your local member or the ombudsman.

 

[Suzanne rose]

I applied for the age pension in march still waiting after 54 years in the workforce and never out of work

I applied for DSP beginning of February and still waiting. Have you called them

 

[samtumino]

Wow it must be tough being perfect. I worked for Centrelink for 15 years on the front line in many roles. Staff rely on the correct information being provided by the client computer programs work out the payment. It’s not a person adding it up on a piece of paper. Staff do their best, put up with lots of abuse and threats but keep coming back to work because they want to help. Centrelink is a huge system which provides a service to just about every Australian. How can you expect a system that big to be perfect. It’s always let’s bash Centrelink dimwits. Let’s forget that they leave their families to provide money services social work support following floods or fire. Staff working closely with homeless those experiencing domestic violence mental health young people in crisis. No let’s just bash the dimwits because they are not perfect

Sometime ago I worked for someone who was taking advantage of his customers in an unfair way. I left that job 15 days after I started it (not 15 years after). If I had kept working there any longer, I would have considered myself, and would have been, as guilt as my ex-employer.
Anyone who keeps working for Centrelink in the knowledge that they are causing unnecessary distress to so many people deserve the abuse that they get because they made themselves accomplices of an unjust and unfair system.
DIMWITS is very mild word compared to what I am thinking!!!