Deloitte Australia will reimburse part of the A$440,000 it earned from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations after a commissioned report was found to contain fabricated quotes from a federal court judgment and references to non-existent academic papers.

The 237-page document, published in July, initially underwent limited public scrutiny. A revised version released in October removed misattributed quotations and corrected erroneous citations after Sydney University researcher Chris Rudge raised concerns about extensive“fabricated references.”

The department acknowledged Deloitte had confirmed“some footnotes and references were incorrect” and noted that Deloitte had agreed to repay the final instalment under its contract. The amount to be refunded has not been publicly disclosed. The department asserted that the core substance and recommendations of the report remain intact.

Rudge discovered around 20 errors in the original version, including a false attribution of a book to Professor Lisa Burton Crawford and a misquotation of a court case that misrepresented a judge's words. He described the discrepancies as not only academic slippage but“misstating the law to the Australian government” in a compliance audit.

In the revised version, Deloitte included an explicit disclosure that a generative AI tool-Azure OpenAI GPT-4o, operated via the department's infrastructure-was used in drafting portions of the report. Deloitte did not directly attribute the errors to AI, but acknowledged the problems in referencing and indicated the matter has been“resolved directly with the client.”

The contract, awarded in December 2024, tasked Deloitte with reviewing the Targeted Compliance Framework and its associated IT systems, especially concerning automated penalties in the welfare system. The department said that while references and footnotes were corrected, no changes were made to the report's main findings.

The affair has sparked criticism across the political spectrum. Greens Senator Barbara Pocock demanded a full refund, accusing Deloitte of misusing AI by misquoting a judge and relying on non-existent references. Labor Senator Deborah O'Neill decried what she called a“human intelligence problem,” emphasising the need for greater oversight when firms integrate AI in high-stakes government work.

Legal and AI ethics experts warn this example illustrates a broader risk: generative AI tools may produce plausible but false content-a phenomenon known as“hallucination”-that can slip past superficial review. The Deloitte case has drawn scrutiny over industry practices in deploying AI without rigorous human verification, particularly in public sector assignments where accuracy is essential.

Officials are now considering stronger clauses in consulting contracts mandating disclosure of AI usage and enforceable verification standards. Some observers suggest that professional services firms may need to adopt more robust audit trails and accountability mechanisms when employing generative models.

At Deloitte, the incident comes amid a broader push into AI-driven consulting. The firm has invested heavily in generative AI technologies and emphasises them in client pitches. Internal critics argue this episode underscores the risk of overreliance on AI without disciplined human oversight-especially in domains where legal, policy or compliance implications are involved.

MENAFN12102025000152002308ID1110183484