Organisations wanting to use job seekers chasing mutual obligations points as volunteers will find it tougher to be approved, after the government agency responsible for Centrelink admitted to mistakenly allowing a political party onto a list of accepted bodies.
The ABC can reveal Legalise Cannabis NSW, which is on track to win a seat in the NSW parliament after last weekend's election, was allowed to sign up to become an "approved voluntary work organisation" for the purposes of mutual obligations.
Following enquiries from the ABC, Services Australia confirmed the political party had now been removed from the list, an urgent investigation was underway and the approval process would be tightened.
Ahead of the state election, Legalise Cannabis NSW was promoting itself as a "Centrelink-approved voluntary organisation" on the Seek Volunteer website and on Facebook.
Questions from the ABC about the party's approval were passed between government departments before finally being answered by Services Australia.
Legalise Cannabis NSW "should not have been approved" as a voluntary work organisation, a Services Australia spokesperson said, blaming "human error" for the mistake.
"We have taken immediate action to remove Legalise Cannabis NSW as an approved voluntary work organisation and have notified them," the spokesperson said, adding the party was on the approval list for approximately three weeks.
"We are also strengthening the application and approval process going forward."
The spokesperson said a "very small number" of job seekers ultimately ended up volunteering for points through the party.
Those volunteers would not be penalised while being moved to "alternative arrangements", they added.
The ABC sent a list of questions to Legalise Cannabis NSW and attempted to further contact party officials multiple times — including its lead upper house candidate, Jeremy Buckingham, on Monday — but did not receive a response before publication.
Mr Buckingham acknowledged the situation when pressed during an ABC Radio Sydney interview on Wednesday morning, but denied having any extensive knowledge about what happened.
"I'm not across the details of how that occurred, who was responsible, all of that," he said.
'Absolutely no transparency'
Mutual obligations and programs like Work for the Dole have long been criticised by social services advocates.
They say the system allows organisations to benefit from the cheap labour of those living below the poverty line, while doing little to actually help them find real work.
The Legalise Cannabis NSW example has raised further concerns about the transparency and administration of mutual obligations.
Jess (whose last name has been withheld) was made redundant from her last job in insurance.
She has been receiving Centrelink parenting payments while looking for part-time work and raising her daughter as a single mum.
To keep receiving welfare support, the 37-year-old is required to apply for eight jobs per month and to prove she has not refused any reasonable opportunity.
"The jobs I'm applying for … I'm told often that my application will no longer progress because more than 100 other people applied for that same role," she said.
Jess was sent the Legalise Cannabis NSW volunteer ad by a friend.
While she said she was intrigued by the ad, it also started "shooting up red flags".
"I looked at it and thought, 'That's a weird thing to be offering … how did Centrelink sign off on a political party?'"
Jess said it was important to keep political bodies out of the mutual obligations system to avoid "muddying the waters".
"It smells to me," she said.
Antipoverty Centre spokesperson Kristin O'Connell said it was troubling that a political party had been approved.
"I think it is particularly insidious when political parties seem to be trying to manipulate people on the lowest incomes into working for them for free so that they can get power," she said.
The ABC understands there is no publicly available list of approved voluntary work organisations.
Ms O'Connell said that raised questions about which other groups were on it.
"There is absolutely no transparency about [who is being approved]," Ms O'Connell said.
"If you are a person who wants to volunteer to get your points and you're approaching an organisation that says it is approved … you're having to trust that organisation [is] not lying about whether they are an approved host.
"So you put people at risk and provide no accountability for the public to understand and scrutinise what types of organisations are getting free labour from welfare recipients."
Elise Klein, an associate professor at the Australian National University's Crawford School of Public Policy, said it reflected the overall "lack of care" built into the mutual obligations system.
"If you're going to compel people to do these activities, it needs to be much more transparent, and include much more thoughtful thinking around the kinds of activities and the kinds of skills people are going to achieve [from those activities]," she said.
