Ministry says it could always use automated decision-making to make welfare decisions
Thursday, 4 June 2026
The Ministry for Social Development claims it was never restricted from using automated decision-making, despite Parliament passing legislation on Friday that explicitly permits it.
The Social Security Act previously said automated decision-making could be used in specific areas, including child support information, mandatory reviews and re-grants of benefits.
The Ministry did not respond to Stuff’s questions about what it has used ADM for to date.
The Ministry for Social Development says it has never been restricted in its use of automated decision-making in the welfare system, after a bill providing a broad permission to use it passed through Parliament on Friday.
The amendment to the Social Security Act, which was passed under urgency as part of the Government’s 2026 Budget measures, expanded the permitted uses of automated decision-making (ADM) to any social assistance programmes, and any statutory powers, duties or functions exercised by the Ministry.
Previously, provisions of the Social Security Act allowed the use of ADM for “specified provisions” if they were about one of four things:
Child support payment info shared with the Ministry (and how that affects a person's assets or income).
Breaches of obligations.
Mandatory reviews.
The expiry and re-grant of certain benefits.
But after questions from Stuff, the Ministry has revealed they believe they were always allowed to use ADM more broadly.
“The clauses did not restrict MSD to using ADM for only those specific processes,” Melissa Gill, DCE Organisational Assurance and Communication, said.
“The Bill strengthens the legislative safeguards for MSD’s use of ADM that already exist. This wasn’t required because MSD needed a statutory authority to enable the use of ADM, but to increase transparency and clarity around MSD’s use of ADM.”
Gill did not respond to Stuff’s questions about what the Ministry has used ADM for to date.
The Ministry’s interpretation appeared to be different to the Government’s, with statements made during the amendment bill’s debate contradicting Gill’s response.
“MSD already uses automated decision-making in limited areas, but there is no explicit general authority to use it across the system. This bill introduces that authority,” said Minister Scott Simpson, introducing the bill on behalf of Social Development Minister Louise Upston on Friday.
“The bill enables MSD to use automated decision-making where appropriate, with safeguards in place, and that means faster decisions, more consistency, and a system people can trust.”
Upston did not respond to Stuff’s requests for comment.
It was Labour MP Helen White who first raised concerns about the Ministry’s existing practices, after seeing large chunks of the regulatory impact statement had been redacted citing legal professional privilege.
“I used my imagination and I thought, what could the possible legal privilege be around not telling me what the problem was? I thought, well, it could be that perhaps the Ministry of Social Development have been acting in this way without the law behind them. That is the only thing that I can think of that would allow that to be privileged, that there’s been some illegal act or some risk of one,” she said.
Speaking to Stuff on Thursday, White said the Ministry’s response was “very interesting”.
“I was very surprised by the [regulatory impact statement] because when it came to what the problem was, it was all redacted. The little lawyer in me thought, why would you redact the problem?” she said.
White wasn’t the only Opposition MP to take issue with the bill. Green Party social development spokesperson Ricardo Menéndez March described the change as “a carte blanche expansion to basically let a robot - a machine - to have power over people’s lives”.
“We have seen where automating welfare decisions leads. Australia's Robodebt scheme destroyed livelihoods, drove people into debt they did not owe, and left thousands without their legal entitlements. There is no reason to repeat that here,” he said.
Robodebt was an automated government scheme implemented in Australia in 2016. It incorrectly demanded welfare recipients pay back benefits, due to an an incorrect algorithm.
Upston told Parliament on Friday that these changes were “absolutely not Robodebt”.
“This is the next phase in how we use ADM, so that very straightforward decisions and business rules can be automated so that the amazing people who are at the frontline in MSD can actually use their time and expertise to deliver value to the people that they serve.”