Thread by @lukehgomes

Government lawyers telling AAT several robodebt "business case" documents sought by @jpwarren should be covered by cabinet confidentiality, others relate to "costings" - "financial information relating to a cost that would be incurred in implementing certain measures".

Nothing on "algorithms", government lawyer says. But he flags in advance that the case could go to the federal court.

Tom Brennan, for Warren, says that for some of the documents to be covered by a cabinet exemption, must be shown that portfolio minister at the time (Scott Morrison) requested they be created to be taken to cabinet.

Brennan foreshadows he intends to cross-examine a DHS public servant about Justice Murphy's suggestion that senior public servants should haven known the risks of robodebt.

The government argues the disclosure of the documents would mean public servants were not candid with their ministers.

But Brennan will argue that disclosure of the documents will mean public servants will in future "think about the risks of selling ministers [proposals] replete with risks of the most extreme kind"

Brennan further underlining: unless Morrison (or later Porter) requested the robodebt documents for submission to cabinet, they cannot be exempt.

AAT hearing from Scott Britton, a former DHS official, who now works for the NDIA. Britton says a NPP (new policy proposal) is a submission for government consideration. When you say government what do you mean? Ministers, economic committee, as in a cabinet committee (ERC)

Why is document 9 an NPP? Based on the document, his experience on giving advice, and his recollection of the time, etc.

Britton qualifies that a lot of time has passed. He was involved with many discussions about the proposals. He was responsible for compliance activity. "I was certainly providing advice to my managers, supervisors ... in relation to this NPP."

Britton: "I was asked to contribute to the preparation of an NPP or NPPs" - his understanding is that information would be submitted to cabinet. Acknowledges his knowledge of what happened is limited but was intended for of cabinet.

Britton says in his experience it's "highly likely" it was a minister who requested the document be created for submission to cabinet.

Basically Britton is saying all the documents are "NPP" documents.

Brennan starts by questioning Britton's claim he's had extensive experience with cabinet processes over his 30 year career. He says the claim was "sloppy". Britton does not agree.

The government's evidence is supported by Britton as a witness stating that these documents sought are cabinet-exempt.

Britton acknowledges under cross examination he was not author of the first three documents being sought under FOI.

Britton has been unable to say when most of the documents being sought were created.

Returning to this for day two: Tom Brennan questioning why the government has not called former DHS boss Kathryn Campbell (now DSS boss) or Karen Harfield, still a DHS general manager. Britton says he doesn't know why.

Brennan makes the same point about government official Craig Storen. Basically, he argues there are plenty of people who could more directly draw a link between the documents and cabinet, or not, but the government has not called them as witnesses.