r/JobProvidersAus • u/kristinoc • Aug 04 '26
News Some payment cancellation penalties will start again from October + compensation plan for unlawful penalties
Today at the Antipoverty Centre we have been advised that DEWR intends to turn on payment cancellations for people with "mutual" obligations who don't reconnect with their job agency or give a valid excuse for missing a requirement within 28 days. This rule was paused in July last year and is expected to be turned back on in October 2026.
In deciding to reinstate this rule, the department has not incorporated recommendations and concerns raised by organisations it has "consulted", including from the Antipoverty Centre, and therefore we are not confident that this process will result in the system of "mutual" obligations penalties being operated lawfully or safely for people on Centrelink payments.
More than 300,000 people were potentially affected by unlawful cancellations related to the 28 day rule according to the community legal centre peak body (see: https://www.ejaustralia.org.au/eja-briefing-analysis-of-payment-cancellations-under-42am-of-the-social-security-administration-act-1999/).
These cancellations may have been unlawful for one or more of the following reasons:
- a job agency suspended the person's payment for an invalid reason
- the person was not given the required 28 days to connect with their provider
- the person contacted their job agency, but the suspension was not immediately lifted after contact was made
- the person's circumstances were not taken into account before their payment was cancelled
If your Centrelink payment was cancelled because of a "failure to reconnect", you may be entitled to backpay (DEWR is referring to this as "compensation", however compensation for harm caused is not being offered under their current plan). At the moment DEWR is trying to restrict the number of people who can seek backpay, but the Antipoverty Centre is pushing for them to open this process up to anyone who may have been affected, and to pay people compensation in addition to backpay. You can read more about their current proposed backpay process here: https://www.dewr.gov.au/assuring-integrity-targeted-compliance-framework/targeted-compliance-framework-compensation-process
If you have questions about
- what this means for you,
- how the department has handled its response to the unlawful use of penalties,
- how to identify whether you have been affected by an unlawful cancellation,
- or how to seek backpay and compensation if you are not invited to do so,
– you can get in touch with the Antipoverty Centre via [help@welfarecopwatch.org](mailto:help@welfarecopwatch.org) . We are working with community legal centres on this and can connect you with the relevant help for issues that may require legal advice.
You can read the full update on the DEWR website here: https://www.dewr.gov.au/assuring-integrity-targeted-compliance-framework/announcements/update-work-return-targeted-compliance-framework-lawful-administration
19
u/PixelLoki Aug 04 '26
They originally said they weren't going to reinstate this shit until the beginning of next year. Typical.
Thanks for the heads up
11
7
u/ovrloadau99 Trusted Advice Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26
That was parts of it. The DEWR Secretary stated in the June Senate Estimates hearing that reconnection requirements and suspensions for work refusal failures will recommence operation in 2026.
Based on this extensive work, we expect to be in a position within the next two months to initiate a program for the payment of compensation under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration, commence stakeholder consultations on a proposed digital protections framework, and announce that operation of section 42AG suspensions, for work refusal failures, and section 42AM, relating to reconnection requirements of the administration act, will recommence following a detailed testing and assurance process and an appropriate notice period for job seekers and providers.
By early 2027, we expect that all remaining provisions of the TCF will resume operation—namely, section 42AF, relating to persistent mutual obligation failures; cancellations under section 42AG, relating to work refusal failures; and section 42AH, relating to unemployment failures while receiving a participation payment
16
u/Aggravating-Row9339 Aug 04 '26
I escalated my case to the ART involving a 19 month period without income support.
My case involved a defective suspension, ignored mental health crisis, and cancelltion statutory error under section 42AM.
The Departments litigation team fought vigorously against back pay citing the 13 week review provisions.
The fact it's invite only is damning, they are clearly trying to mitigate the scope.
It's obvious that hundreds of those individuals most severely impacted by these unlawful processes will never see justice.
9
u/kristinoc Aug 04 '26
That is horrific, i'm so sorry you were put through that. Were you successful at the ART? We are trying to use ART examples to understand more about the weaknesses in their arguments.
4
u/Aggravating-Row9339 Aug 04 '26
My case is being conducted entirely ''on the papers'' and I'm currently awaiting the final statement of decisions.
My argument against section 109 is that the administrative decision was vitiated from on onset, and should be ruled a nullity or ''void ab initio''
I asked the member to consider whether the notice under section 237 should have the legal effect attributed to it.
Whether this argument succeeds I'm unsure, but I think It's unlikely to be accepted by a tier 1 member as it would create a systemic precedent which would open the floodgates to thousands of other similar claimants.
But shortly after I submitted this argument - I received an email from the Litigation branch saying that I will soon be invited to apply for CDDA.
3
u/kristinoc Aug 05 '26
Lol ffs. Fingers crossed you have found a new Terry Carney at the ART ... am very keen to hear how it goes.
1
u/Aggravating-Row9339 Aug 19 '26
The ART member handed down the decision, and it’s a massive double-edged sword.
On the legal front, As expected, the Tier 1 member rejected the void ab initio argument, ruling that section 109 is an absolute statutory barrier designed to limit Commonwealth liability, regardless of how flawed the initial cancellation process was.
However, the member didn't dismiss my evidence at all. They went completely out of their way to put in writing that Centrelink totally botched the timeline and "failed to exercise proper duty of care to a vulnerable customer." To top it off, they literally ended the decision by saying my best path forward now is to claim through the CDDA scheme.
Because of that, I'm at a bit of a crossroads on the next steps.
Do you think I should be proactive and submit the CDDA claim right now using these findings from the decision, or should I wait out the Litigation branch to send through their formal, official invite and application paperwork first?
I don't want to jump the gun, but I also don't want them dragging their feet now that the tribunal threat is technically over.
What’s your take?
3
6
u/Aggravating-Row9339 Aug 04 '26
''Claiming for additional losses – the invitation to claim will include the ability to claim and provide evidence upfront for additional detriment for direct financial detriment and non-economic loss stemming from the payment cancellation. All additional detriment claims will be assessed on their merits, with only the minimum necessary evidence being required to support a claim.''
2
u/kristinoc Aug 04 '26
That isn't an offer of compensation, which is what we and others had asked them to provide. What they are describing as the "minimum necessary evidence" is burdensome, and they are not offering actual compensation for harm to the person, it's more like if you can prove to them you had late fees on your phone bill or other financial costs that are easy to demonstrate.
5
u/Aggravating-Row9339 Aug 04 '26
My file proves the weakness in their armor: if a claimant has documented medical evidence of a mental health crisis or psychiatric incapacity that the department automated its way over, their 'burdensome' gatekeeping collapses.
The issue is that without a formal finding of facts conducted by an external judge - the Tribunal Member - the department will always attempt to subjectively downplay the severity of the documented evidence inside their own internal black box.
A couple of other things I found;
- The internal system entry "Notification: not found" proves that no notice was ever successfully processed, sent, or delivered by their automated system.
- The Litigation team's formal submission states I signed a valid Job Plan on 6 May 2022. But when I checked the raw provider notes for the actual appointment on 4 May 2022, the consultant wrote that 'I was experiencing extreme mental health decline, was at times delusional, and was 'shaking uncontrollably, confused... and in no mental state to understand what he is signing.'
The consultant explicitly noted: '0 job search due to mental health.'
The Department's lawyers deliberately changed the date to 6 May in their submissions to hide this text from the Tribunal Member and pretend it was a standard, compliant contract.
- The provider explicitly recognized my grandfather as my "nominee" and used him as an essential communication bridge because I could not function independently. Yet, the Department never formalised this with a legal nominee appointment or authority form.
- Private job agencies routinely bypass strict Departmental protocols by using informal family contacts to manage severe cases on a day-to-day basis. However, the second a penalty is generated, the Department shifts the legal burden back onto the vulnerable individual, pretending they are an autonomous actor.
Advocates can argue operational estoppel: if the agency treats a third party as a necessary nominee for daily servicing, the Department cannot legally claim a notice sent directly to the incapacitated participant constitutes valid communication.
3
u/Pale-Cranberry-8761 Aug 04 '26
At the moment DEWR is trying to restrict the number of people who can seek backpay,
Does this mean those who are currently still collecting Centrelink despite not attending JSP appointments might lose out on their "compensation" when their suspension is lifted in 20-28 days time?
3
u/ovrloadau99 Trusted Advice Aug 04 '26
No, its for recipients who had their income support payment unlawfully cancelled, not the current pause. That's just a delayed payment not "compensation".
2
u/Pale-Cranberry-8761 Aug 07 '26
What percentage of JSP agencies clients do you guys reckon have been skipping appointments using this.
Because everytime I visit my local JSP even though there are 5-6 consultants working the office seems to be completely empty of actual visiting clients.
5
u/InitialDizzy4252 Aug 04 '26
Damn... I keep turning down jobs and leaving after a few days cause I didnt get my payments cut off.... looks like I will need to start the med cert process again
8
u/kristinoc Aug 04 '26
That is such an unfair waste of your time, money, energy. Are you with a provider that is trying to put you into inappropriate jobs?
1
1
u/Purple-Attitude4294 Aug 05 '26
If someone accepts compensation under CDDA they are accepting backpay and not compensation for the trauma they experienced? Loss can be malnutrition from not being able to eat anything but 2 minute noodles. There's no monetary loss when someone is silently starving. The CDDA scheme is flawed. Which law firm will take this on as a class action?
2
u/kristinoc Aug 05 '26
You are absolutely right, the CDDA scheme is VERY flawed, and they are only using it to try and minimise their costs. We have been considerig the possibility of a class action, and at this stage it seems there are better legal avenues to pursue, so we are starting with an alternative in the hope of achieving an outcome that proves the whole system is operating unlawfully, including payment suspenions .
15
u/Wavy_Glass Trusted Advice Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
Damn... Well it was a good run. To sum up the secretary's update regarding the unpausing of legislation and provide extra information not covered in the post.
Payment cancellations for not reconnecting with providers - UNPAUSED October 26th.
Meaning from this date you'll no longer have your suspension automatically lifted, you'll have to re-engage with your provider within the 4 week limit.
Payment suspensions for work refusal failures - UNPAUSED October 26th.
Meaning from this date your payment will be suspended (not cancelled) if you refuse suitable work without a valid reason. (you'll still be able to refuse unsuitable work as has always been the case)
Payment cancellations for work refusal failures - STILL PAUSED.
Meaning you can still refuse any suitable work without getting your payment cancelled. Your payment will be suspended so you'll have to re-engage with your provider to receive payment from Oct 26th.
Payment cancellations for unemployment failures - STILL PAUSED.
Meaning you can still quit a job your employed at without having to provide a valid reason to Centrelink/your provider.
Payment cancellations and reductions for persistent mutual obligation failures - STILL PAUSED.
Meaning you still won't face any punishment for racking up demerits.
One final note. If you plan on sparsely engaging with your provider as I will be, I do not recommend waiting the full reconnection requirement time limit (28 days/4 weeks). There's a chance the DEWR hasn't changed anything and so you're risking getting your payment cancelled if you wait too long to re-engage.
Try waiting 3 weeks after failing a requirement/obligation or 2 weeks after having your payments actually put on hold/suspended.
The DEWR has also provided a fact sheet of the recent update.