Talk:Centrelink

Would this count as reliable resourec for the all-being crap-ness of centrelink?--ZZ 07:44, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the link mentioned by ZayZayEM in October 2004 is a reliable resource for client dissatisfaction with Centrelink. It is one person's experience and thus not an appropriate link. Similarly I removed from the external links, http://centrelinkbreach.blogspot.com which was tagged as being a Centrelink Complaints Blog but seemed to have contributions from only one person. I feel extrnal links about complaints need to be based on many people's experiences to be a valid link to this article. There is an issue of how the individual voice is heard against a large organisation or even a collection of voices, but there are ombudsman reports and other records of lack of client satisfaction.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 23:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am currently testing an automated Wikipedia link suggester. Ran it on this article, here are the results:

• Can link unemployment benefits: ...g pensions, student allowances, and unemployment benefits (the 'dole'). Additionally, Centrelink ...
• Cannot effectively link the Commonwealth: ... Centrelink operates under the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency Act 1997.... see below
• Can link welfare payment: ... surrounding fraud and abuse of the welfare payment system, competency of staff, and qualit...
• Can link January 1: ...primary students who turned 14 prior to January 1 of their current year of study. To qual...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these links may be wrong, some may be right; You can leave positive feedback or negative feedback; Please feel free to delete this section from the talk page. -- Nickj 08:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• The Commonwealth in this context does not refer to the Commonwealth of Nations but the Commonwealth of Australia which redirects to Australia as there is no separate article at present. Centrelink is not administering payments or countries other than Australia to the best of my knowledge.--A Y Arktos 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia isn't here to be a propaganda arm for Centrelink or the Australian Government. So if I edit this to read...

Centrelink is the trading name of the Commonwealth Service Delivery Agency (CSDA), a statutory authority responsible for litigious delivery of human services on behalf of agencies of the Commonwealth Government of Australia.

Litigious being the operative word.. 1 a: disputatious, contentious b: prone to engage in lawsuits

That is exactly what they are disputatious, contentious

However if that needs to be referenced I'm sure we can find many sources! And therefore the edit should remain in tacked and only be altered should the organization itself change. Not to suit the fore mentioned propaganda. You may as well say the Nazis didn't kill Jews!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Akayani (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is without a doubt the worst article I have read at wikipedia, it reads more like a rant by a 12 year old than an article. I hope it gets fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.202.112.163 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In response to recent major edits to the article I placed on his/her talk page the following comments.

I have reverted your edits to the Centerlink article as I think you had removed a lot of useful information. Please feel free to edit the article again but perhaps focussing on adding to what is there rather than deleting the work of other editors, Regards--User:AYArktos | Talk 00:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Once again - your edits to the Centrelink article were a little too bold and have been reverted. Please consider editing by adding material, removing only inaccurate material, or by rewording poorly expressed material. Thanks --A Y Arktos (Talk) 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

User:Jtkiefer jhas also commented on Kennis's talk page:

Yet again, please stop removing large amounts of content from Centrelink with no apparent reason or explanation. If you continue you may be temporarily blocked from editing. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

He has replied to my talk page (and similarly to his talk page and Jtkiefer's talk page) as follows:

The text inserted is on behalf of Centrelink. Replaced text holds a lot of inaccurate information on payments and eligibility. The text added to the site is to generalise payments and services Centrelink delivers. For details, people are directed to Centrelink's website. Considering that contributions on Wikipedia can be accessed and altered by anyone, there is no need to elaborate on payments and services as long as there is a link to the official website of the department. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kennis (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that Wikipedia should be a mirror for Centrelink, nor does someone claiming to be a representative for Centrelink have any more editorial rights than other wikipedians. Alteration to content needs to be made on the merits of the material itself. If the content is inaccurate it should be removed. If it is incomplete it should be annotated appropriately and considered, preferably via discussion on this talk page.

In summary, before making wholesale changes to the content of this article, please discuss on this talk page and obtain concensus of other editors. --A Y Arktos (Talk) 23:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have recently been completing undergraduate research on Centrelink. This article did not accurately explain what Centrelink is: a statutory authority delivering services on behalf of Commonwealth agencies. Centrelink must be understood in light of the rationale for its creation: a) service delivery integration; and b) implementing a purchaser/provider split. I have rewritten the opening section to describe this.

Although I have not edited the rest of the article, I don't think this article is the proper place to describe the benefits available. Centrelink ultimately only distribuites the benefits and has no influence over payment policy. If it's though necessary to list the payments on Wikipedia, perhaps a different article entitled 'Social security benefits in Australia' would be a better place to do so. This article should discuss aspects of service delivery (not payment policies), in particular the merits of the purchaser-provider split, and service delivery quality.

Although I have not altered it, I believe the 'legal issues' section is absolutely incorrect. Centrelink is subject to adminsitrative review through the SSAT and the AAT, and judicial review through the Federal Court. Perhaps this section should describe any institutional or cultural barriers to individuals seeking review. The criticism of Newstart agreements, while valid, is poorly articlated, and does not seem to be a legal issue.

I understand this article has been the source of some disagreement, however I beleive what I have posted is a vast (and referenced) improvement over what was there previously. If anyone thinks this is inaccurate or is too big a change I'd be happy to discuss. --Chewy m 20:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I am happy with your changes - thanks for commenting here.

In terms of whether or not this article should contain the benefits that Centrelink distributes or otherwise, you need to think about the reader - not from the point of view of somebody who is looking for an accurate description of how goverment delivers services as distinct from how policy is made, but from what the reader, who may be a client of Centrelink experiences, and is seeking to understand that experience. Wikipedia is not a mirror for the Centrelink website :-). Readers are probably interested in understanding Centrelink in layman's terms. Within that framework the article needs to be right. So, if I am a recipient of unemployment benefits, I deal with Centrelink, those benefits have a proper name and there are certain things prescribed about the relationship Centrelink and I have for example. It becomes tricky as I understand (I'm not a recipient so not fully across these things) that I don't have only to deal with Centrelink, I can deal with various charities who are now employment agencies. Similarly the Family Tax Benefit is not only delivered through Centrelink but also the tax system. It may well be that a separate article is needed for how services are delivered to make it clear but that article needs not to avoid forking.

As for the legal issues section, feel free to fix, but remember this is from the point of view of the recipient as well as the agency and should reflect reality as well as the proper process. That is, I agree that it should have "any institutional or cultural barriers to individuals seeking review."

--A Y Arktos\^talk 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Certain portions of the article are lacen with POV:Newstart is "generous" and the coalition changes to the system are "reforms". Other instances of a narrow, neoliberal viewpoint, also exist.Jackk 10:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

A reference to reform has been removed, the Newstart section has been revised. I am removing the neutrality tag, pending the identification of further issues with the article--A Y Arktos 21:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow....this article is seriously POV. Perhaps there should be an article about Centrelink and then an article about the Australian Social Security system to avoid this horrible mess--Jabberwalkee 13:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

No issue with separate articles - please feel free to write. In terms of the POV assertion - please specify areas to be fixed or ...

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

--A Y Arktos 20:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

If it's criticisms you're after look no further than any news article about Centrelink. The comments sections tend to be filled with criticisms of both Centrelink and the agencies it liaisons with provide its services.

For example: https://newmatilda.com/2014/08/12/dole-bludgers-revenge

In mentioning this article, the fact that an application exists for automating dealing with the government is cause for concern to begin with and perhaps warrants further investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.59.99 (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think there should be an in-article section which addresses people's dissatisfaction with Centrelink and at least voices any problems commonly seen with it.

Signed. I thought Centrelink is notorious enough nationally to get a criticism section everytime they told many families "sorry, but your kid isn't sick enough, go re-apply in 3 years".

Perhaps there should be a critisism section included in the article to briefly talk about the shortcomings of centrelink in the delivery of services. These issues have been tabled in parliament before, and u could use some of those statements as non-biased eveidence. I might look into it and table it here if i get time. --137.219.151.72 03:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

removed some pov stuff about centrelink and youth. if there are some genuine and referenced criticisms perhaps a criticisms section, written in npov as possible, should be included. frymaster 07:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

At the moment this page is more about Australia's social security and welfare system than Centrelink. I propose that this article be split into

Australian Social Security System - an article mostly about the legisaltion and mechanics of Centrelink (and DVA) payments.

AND

Centrelink - an article about the organisation, its origins and reputation.

This makes more sense to me than the large number of subheadings we have at the moment. I will do this sometime next week unless there is some objection Jabberwalkee 12:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree I have gone through the requested moves procedure and put a banner at the top of the page. If there are no objections by 12 May the bulk of this page will be renamed Social Security (Australia). That name is consistent with that used for other countries. The residual information of Centrelink will remain.

Cheers Actuarial disco boy 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, nobody has made any opposition to your plans in the last five days; I would suggest that you go ahead. The move is unobstructed, so you should have no problems movnig it yourselves. I don't know how you want to reorganise the articles after the move, so I haven't move it myself; this would have left the job half-done. --Stemonitis 07:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok - the move is done

Actuarial disco boy 11:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reference required

Foreign pensions bring in over A$1 billion* per year to the Australian economy, compared to the A$365 million* per year which leaves Australia in pension payments.

where does this info come from, date, is it current? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.85.182 (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Robo-debt is back in the news again. Samantha Maiden, 2020-06-02, "Emails reveal government knew Centrelink ‘robo-debt’ scheme was illegal" The New Daily [1] (and similar stories in other outlets). Pelagic (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It may be worth giving the robo-debt scheme its own page, given the amount of media coverage, ongoing legal challenges and public controversy. B 897 (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Nevermind, I went and made it myself. B 897 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

There wasn't always a Centrelink.

I remember its predecessor but not its name. Does anyone? 49.3.72.79 (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

DSS. It says in the article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

it was 'social security' before it was centerlink 2001:8003:4259:E000:CDD8:E20F:83E4:184B (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

DSS was the government department that established Centrelink and therefore is not what I asked for.

The one thing I do remember about it is that actor Ray Meagher presented an ad of Centrelink's predecessor.49.3.72.79 (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Then you remember incorrectly, I'm afraid. The sign on the door used to say DSS, then changed to Centrelink. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is not incorrect. It wasn't called DSS and I construed your response as a personal attack on me. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

It was DSS when I worked there for a couple of years in the mid-1970s. Perhaps the IPuser is thinking of the related but separate government agency, the Commonwealth Employment Service, which was superseded by the privatised Job Network system. Bahudhara (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

In the 80's the Department of Social Security (DSS) was the equivalent of Centrelink. In the late 80's or 90's it was decided to split off the customer oriented work into a separate agency, leaving DSS (rebadged as Department of Human Services) for managing the policy and also as an umbrella organisation for merging additional agencies, eg Medicare and Child Support. There was a search for a name - for a while it was referred to as something like Services Delivery Agency - until they settled on Centrelink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.175.217 (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply