Thread by @lukehgomes

I will be watching and tweeting!

https://twitter.com/NotmydebtS/status/1376361418522566661

First up – as the schedule shows – is the AAT.

About 43% of Centrelink decision the AAT's first tier has been asked to review in 2019-20 were related to Centrelink debts, the inquiry has been told

Labor's Deb O'Neill has turned to Tony Barry, a part time AAT member, that the opposition has concerns about. theguardian.com/australia-news…

O'Neill establishes that Barry may have been making decisions on the robodebt issue, because he has been working on social security matters.

O'Neill notes Barry was also working as a lobbyist. Sian Leathem, the AAT Registrar, says the AAT became of aware of this last year. The AAT told Estimates last week this was not appropriate, and Barry has stopped work as a lobbyist.

O'Neill asserts that there have been no changes to protocols following the Barry situation. Leathem doesn't answer directly, saying there are already obligations in place for members. (ie. no changes to protocol)

Have Barry's decisions been reviewed as a result of what O'Neill says was his conflict of interest? Leathem essentially says that's not the AAT's role.

Leathem says the AAT is not aware of any conflict of interest issues with Barry's decisions. But O'Neill notes that the AAT hasn't really investigated this.

O'Neill says Karen Synon, a former Liberal senator, is in responsible for dealing with the Barry issue because she is a deputy president of the AAT

Not denying the importance of this but estimates was last week and the AAT was there. Would be good to use the limited time here to drill down on the robodebt issue IMO

O'Neill turns to robodebt. She notes since March 2017 the AAT ruled "income averaging" was unlawful. Did anyone at the AAT circulate any memos or material on the robodebt scheme.

Chris Matthies, Chief Legal Officer of the AAT, says there were not a "specific research note" circulated within the tribunal about the scheme.

O'Neill asks: so what happens if the AAT finds the government is acting unlawfully? Leathem says the decisions are provided to the agency (in this case Services Australia), which is a pretty glib comment because obviously they get a copy of a decision they are party to

So basically, nothing happens, and Leathem says these are matters for Services Australia

O'Neill says former AAT Terry Carney believes there might be as many as 500 cases where the AAT found robodebt was unlawful. O'Neill is criticising the AAT for failing to provide to the Senate all of the decision that found the program was unlawful.

AAT says it would have to "manually review each decision that involves a debt matter"

O'Neill says "we need to know the scale of the problem" and warns that without the data something like this could happen again

Hollie Hughes says, and the officials confirm, that AAT members generally make decisions fairly independently, rather than relying on precedent

Hughes, now a Liberal senator, is a former AAT member and says there is a culture among members that they don't want their decisions to be overturned by a court.

Hughes extrapolates this to say that members would therefore not let their own personal views or conflicts get influences their decision making

O'Neill confirms with the AAT officials that it has the power to refer to a question of law straight to the federal court. The AAT notes this is unusual. O'Neill asks why the AAT didn't do this for robodebt? "Isn't that the perfect example?"

AAT claims the decisions were based on a factual matter (ie sufficiency of evidence) not a question of law. O'Neill counters that there were many decisions that found the program was unlawful. "I find that a little hard to understand."

Did a tribunal ever approach the AAT president asking for a referral to the federal court. AAT says not that it's aware, but they will take it on notice

O'Neill is asking Services Australia officials, including the current CEO, Rebecca Skinner, when they first became aware robodebt was unlawful. Skinner notes she became the CEO last year.

Michelle Lees, her deputy, took on her role in August last year, when the refunds process was underway.

O'Neill asks how many compliance debts were referred to debt collectors after the Stuart Robert said the government would no longer raise Centrelink debts based solely on ATO data? Officials take it on notice

We're looking at a debt decision from the AAT from December 2019 which found robodebt was unlawful (this is after the federal court decision in the Victoria Legal Aid case in November). Services Australia says it's a matter for the AAT to determine the schedule of cases

Oh boy. Liberal senator Hollie Hughes now arguing that the robodebt was not found to be "unlawful", just legally insufficient, and that "income averaging" was "a part of" the program, not "the whole program".

O'Neill still hammering away on the Spurling AAT case. She is questioning why Services Australia was defending a robodebt case a week after the federal court had ruled robodebt was unlawful. Officials haven't really given an explanation so far.

Apologies - it's Sperling

Services Australia notes this decision is an AAT 1 matter and that it was the welfare recipient who had appealed.

Chris Birrer, of Services Australia, says in the Spurling case that they had not appealed.

O'Neill now asking questions about AAT member Tony Barry. She asks how many of the AAT decisions that upheld robodebt were made by individuals with links to the Liberal party

Who is responsible for the robodebt settlement? Services Australia deputy Michelle Lees says that's her.

Some questions now about Annette Musolino, who was once general counsel at DHS (now Services Australia). O'Neill asks Musolino what are the lessons from the robodebt scandal

Skinner answers instead and says they've been working on their engagement with citizens, noting the refunds process is going well

Musolino says there are "lots of learnings" around process improvements around communication, consultation with operational staff, customer and stakeholder engagement

O'Neill asks: What would you have done differently back in 2017 when the AAT questioned the legality of the scheme? Services Australia says it's "hypothetical", as does Liberal Hollie Hughes, who says "this is getting ridiculous".

Services Australia takes on notice what the biggest debt that still hasn't been refunded.

How many debts were raised based on income averaging prior to 2015. Chris Birrer of Services Australia says the department doesn't know - it would require a manual review of debts to figure it out.

And that's a wrap.