Thread by @RoyceRk2

Department officials before the Senate talking about the recent federal court #robodebt decision today. Here is the only reference I could find in the government's MYEFO statement regarding the case.

Department's opening statement on Amato and #robodebt is predictable: Can't talk about the case, given two pending legal matters. The debts are being checked. Don't call us, we'll call you if there's an error.

In other words: Trust us, everything is in hand.

Department confirms review is "in process" and numbers can't be given. Review concerns a "highly robust and highly manual process". Involves a "robust QA process".

Dpt insists not all debts have been produced using income averaging, but says it is reviewing all the original robodebts. Senators pulled up the department for not putting "any facts on the table". Dpt says there are simply no numbers to provide.

Senators asking whether the Dpt employed new staff and how long will the process of review will take. Dpt says no new employees. They've redeployed around 750 to conduct the reviews.

Dpt: "We expect to have that cohort early in the new year."

How many cases have they reviewed to date?

Dpt: "I'll have to take that on notice."

Let's sum: half the department's compliance workforce is churning through 734,000 debt notices over the holidays just to get basic numbers on the implications of the Amato decision.

Dpt's Ros Baxter insists it's being done "in a very deliberate way" and not in a panic.

This is in keeping with the Dpt's consistent messaging that everything it does is deliberate, planned, considered, strategic and associated other descriptors.

Liberal senator Hollie Hughes suggesting to the Dpt that the majority of those with "incorrect" debts will likely that "small cohort" who "didn't engage". Greens senator Rachel Siewert points out, in the Amato case, the applicant engaged and the debt was found to be wrong.

Senator Wendy Askew asks whether someone on social security is being notified that recovery has stopped and a review is taking place.

Dpt says they aren't. Instead they suggest people will work it out on their own when recovery action is halted and there's more money coming through. Meanwhile, the Dpts is in the process of drafting a letter to explain. Hasn't gone out yet. Still doing "testing" on it.

Senator Hollie Hughes striking out at the suggestion that robodebt was "automated", emphasising that human input was involved "at every stage of the process".

"This is nothing, this is not a new process, we're not reinventing the wheel."

Hard to keep up with the current exchange.

Senators asking why people are still having their tax returns raided in light of the Amato decision. Dpt says that recovery action is halted once they have been identified as part of the review process. BUT

ATO has to be shown the debt is false before it will refund. Until then it will automatically garnish the money. Siewert wants to know why a handbreak can't be put on given that any debt that involves income averaging is suspect.

And we're back from the short break. Dpt explained "any element" of a debt has been calculated "solely on the basis of income average" it is being completed in the review process. Asked to provide comms with ATO on procedures.

Dpt asked about recent story in The Guardian about privacy concerns raised by handing off debts to private firms. Dpt insists its internal processes are "robust":
theguardian.com/australia-news…

Now being asked about how many times legal advice was sought in relation to Robodebt. Dpt saying it will take the question on notice to give the minister a chance to make a public interest immunity claim.

After Senators were unable to get any answers on legal advice, Baxter is being asked about the last time Dpt reps appeared before the senate, where Renee Leon was asked about the legal basis for #robodebt. Right before the Federal Court struck it down.

Dpt insists its "iterative process of improvement" was on-going before the federal court decision and it acted in good faith in defending the scheme up until that moment and that compliance activity more broadly "is not unlawful".

Which, I should say, has been a consistent talking point from the dpt on #robodebt. When called to publicly defend the program, reps assert dpt's right to raise debts for overpayments.

That is not and has never been the issue. Instead it's an attempt to dissemble.

Dpt takes on notice a question about what specific sources of information it will use to determine suspected debts in the future. Says it is in the process of working out exactly how this will function.

In answer to another question about whether Dpt will use its coercive powers to get information where people can't, Dpt says it uses that power where necessary.

"Our first step will always be to work with customers to see how they can help us."

Dpt seems to now be saying that though it will not be raising a debt on the basis of income averaging, it could still use the technique as a tool to identify a suspected debt, before finding other ways to confirm.

Some confusion around how many debts that go through to ARO review are reduced. Senators' reading QoN that says sum is reduced up to 75 percent. Dpt not sure about the technical specifics and wants to double check that figure. Takes it on notice.

Re: last tweet. @DarrenODonovan has the numbers:

https://twitter.com/DarrenODonovan/status/1206380345274191872?s=20

@DarrenODonovan Baxter says the dpt is not aware of any government plans to expand the compliance program to include other groups.

Later confirms the dpt has not done any costings of the "mop up" from the Federal court decision.

@DarrenODonovan Hearing now wrapped.

To sum up, what we saw were departmental officials attempting to project calm and ease, despite snowballing challenges and great uncertainty. We learnt more by what was not said, than what was.

Now back to work on what will be my last story for this year.