Thread by @maximumcuddles

Welcome to Hearing Day 15:

https://twitter.com/maximumcuddles/status/1586945887376658438

The Ombudsman has decided they are now in a position to be helpful:

https://twitter.com/DarrenODonovan/status/1600280509359480832?t=z2qpsUi-kHqnJMcEupSm4A&s=19

Kathryn Campbell is up, answering to Senior Counsel Assisting Greggery. She is being asked about riffing up the contents of the debt letter with the Minister, which she says reflected the seriousness of the issue.

#RobodebtRC

Looking for the Executive Minute to Morrison once more. Bit of document shuffling for the past 5 minutes, it seems they are looking for a particular draft. Campbell confirms she was variously involved in the drafting process. #RobodebtRC

Confirms she was previously questioned on Morrison's handwritten notes about 'welfare cops' etc. Request to 'note current arrangements to maintain integrity of welfare payment outlays'. Greggery notes to Holmes that they now know what happened to it on Morrison's side #RobodebtRC

These documents are not being shown on the screen at the moment as they are being read by Campbell. It's an attachment or draft she has not previously seen or reviewed in preparing. Presumably subject to a non-publication order at this stage.

#RobodebtRC

Campbell has finished reviewing and says that she now remembers her involvement in this iteration of the Executive Minute. Greggery is testing the logic and assumptions of the language in the proposal, trying to paint a clearer picture of DHS' intent.

#RobodebtRC

Shortcomings in PAYG data were explicitly identified at this stage - 'variability in timeliness and quality, the ability to use it in a more timely and efficient manner is limited by legislation, policy...'. Greggery identifies the legislative issue as actual fortnightly income.

GREGGERY: It was the case that this referred to casual workers being paid inconsistently?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

GREGERRY: Seasonal workers?

CAMPBELL: I don't want to be pedantic, but I believe they're treated differently under the Social Security Act

HOLMES: This AAT case says no.

To remind us, Campbell previously gave evidence that she was not broadly nor specifically familiar with the contents of the Social Security Act while she was Secretary of DHS *or* DSS. #RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Crystallisation of averaging into a debt would not create a legal debt nor an accurate account of income, reflected in the need to alert Minister of required legislative change in the Minute?

CAMPBELL: Yes

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Disqualified amounts due to recipient earnings would not be captured in the averaged amounts?

CAMPBELL: I don't understand what you're talking about.

GREGGERY: *explains how Centrelink works again to the person previously responsible for administering it*

#RobodebtRC

Documents are now going up on screen so it's possible they just weren't before rather than being flagged...looking at DSS proposal analysis. Campbell hasn't seen this in preparation and reads ahead again.

#RobodebtRC

Campbell has decided to complain about being ambushed by documents on the basis of 'having not worked in this space for 18 months'. Difficult to remember the state of her knowledge of the Social Security Act (she's previously given evidence that she did not have any at any time)

Campbell began this morning quite confidently with clearly-rehearsed statements and manner. This has not survived more than 20 minutes' contact with Greggery. This is more or less how it went last time, too. She is quite predictable and he is very, very good.

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I'm seeing this for the first time (again), I don't think I would have turned my mind to review rights issues.

GREGGERY: Why not? You're responsible for compliance in implementation.

CAMPBELL: That's why I left it to DSS.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Merely that DSS provided policy analysis doesn't relieve DHS of your obligations to compliance.

CAMPBELL: It was a DSS proposal. It was their NPP. I know it's very difficult to explain.

(this is a very deluded and insane thing to say at this point)

#RobodebtRC

Campbell's concept of 'compliance in implementation' is some crap about helping recipients access welfare payments in a way that fulfils their obligations. Nothing that they would have to do on their end. Checks out. Mutual Obligations, baby!

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: Does 'averaging as a last resort' not represent a very significant change in policy to doing it for *everyone*?

CAMPBELL: We intended to work further on it with DSS, at some point a decision was made by someone else, that I have no evidence of.

#RobodebtRC

Campbell struggles to remember what the Guide to Social Security Law is, because she's never read it lol

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I'm struggling to understand what you mean by 'policy'...

HOLMES: *after trying* I don't think we're getting very far with this.

#RobodebtRC

Greggery is now going to basic, short statements to see if Campbell is capable of agreeing . You were the Secretary of the Deparment, yes? So that Department has certain responsibilities? That's a bit more contentious. 'That's YOUR definition of policy', she tells Greggery.

Campbell has now retreated to the 'there was a LOT going on, it's a big Department, I needed to delegate so I wasn't part of the rollout' defence, which is ridiculous as we've heard very often that the proposal represented the biggest thing in town and a Departmental gravy train.

GREGGERY: It was a significant proposal.

CAMPBELL: It was one of many significant proposals (around 40) at the time, including updating the IT system(???).

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I suppose I'm trying to explain that I did not turn my mind to this in the level of detail that allows me to answer your questions.

GREGGERY: Or at all!

HOLMES: Did any of these 40 proposals make anything like this sort of onerous demand on recipients on this scale?

CAMPBELL: I can go back and look. There was something about aged pension...can't remember well enough to answer.

HOLMES: Maybe you'd be in a position to do that over lunch?

A lunchtime detention, the first form of consequences any of the architects have faced.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Again, I think you're agreeing with me despite the manner of your answer...the word 'yes' is missing from your answer, if you accept the proposition with qualifications you should say so.

Campbell is now subsequently disagreeing that she disagrees. Jesus.

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I didn't turn my mind to fairness, but I note that people could always update their details.

She will die on this hill. Indeed, Campbell may not agree with the findings of the Federal Court of Australia at all, as they're personally inconvenient to her.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: It would be fair to someone with a debt to let them know the basis on which it was calculated, yes?

CAMPBELL: Yes. Wait, the initial letter or the debt letter?

GREGGERY: Both.

CAMPBELL: Okay.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: It would make it difficult to exercise your review rights if you had no information on how to do so, yes?

CAMPBELL: Yes. That's why we changed in 2017.

GREGGERY: Do you accept there was reversed onus of proof?

CAMPBELL: Yes. Agreed to this last time.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Did you perceive a possible risk to the Department's reputation from successful appeals?

CAMPBELL: Not at the time in 2015.

GREGGERY: What about in 2017?

CAMPBELL: There were shortcomings that we worked to address in response to Ombudsman's report.

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: Worked to make the system more 'user-friendly', to create more opportunities to engage with the system. I worked diligently to work out *how* to get people to engage in the system.

GREGGERY: Why does it *matter* whether they're engaging or not, if the debts are wrong?

GREGGERY: Did it trouble you?

CAMPBELL: I was troubled that citizens weren't able to engage with the system.

GREGGERY: Why on Earth would that be more important than the debts being correct?

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: It was more important to you to get people to engage with the system than to accurately assess debts.

CAMPBELL: No. I don't accept that.

GREGGERY: I am suggesting this is the direct effect of your evidence.

#RobodebtRC

This is honestly just sad. She is negotiating with the very nature of reality once again, has this concept that averaging is a last-resort that they REALLY didn't want to have to use but if you don't update your details even after all the opportunities we gave you...

#RobodebtRC

I would like to see Greggery challenge her further on her understanding of what 'last resort' actually means in a basic definitional sense, set the actual legislative concept aside for a moment. She has warped it into a justification for extortion like a mafioso.

#RobodebtRC

This will have to wait a few minutes though as they take the morning recess. Greggery referred to it as 'morning tea' earlier which I think he had to withdraw lol

#RobodebtRC

Very interesting session for how large the statutory requirement to collect debt looms in the minds and calculus of bureaucrats. I promise to circle back to this later. We're back from recess.

#RobodebtRC

Greggery begins by clarifying some of her evidence regarding her understanding of the contents of the initial letters and debt letters. Campbell was unable to support her earlier assertion that seasonal workers were treated differently but is able to say why she did.

#RobodebtRC

To the DSS 2016-17 Annual Report, Campbell's first as DSS Secretary. Reference to guidelines on data-matching from the OAIC. What role did she understand those guidelines having in the OCI program? Doesn't now recall. How did she satisfy herself of it as Secretary? Don't recall.

Were you satisfied DSS was meeting its obligations on the OAIC guidelines? Don't recall, did prepare for Estimates. Do you recall a compliance statement going up on your website? No, don't recall specific interest but Dep Sec Golightly responsible for compliance.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Any recollection of data-sharing considerations with ATO?

CAMPBELL: No.

GREGGERY: Would you accept that, had the OCI accorded to the OAIC guidelines, that it would have required a detailed public statement on a technical review?

CAMPBELL: I don't know.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Correct to say that averaging was used on people who did not respond?

CAMPBELL: I had understood that in the past averaging had been used for compliance

HOLMES: Where did you get that understanding? We haven't found anything to support it...

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: Some cases from 2019, maybe?

HOLMES: Mr. Birrer gave us some evidence of the limited sense in which it was used.

CAMPBELL: I'd been advised that it had been used in the past.

GREGGERY: Do you recall who advised you of that and when?

CAMPBELL: Haven't found anything.

CAMPBELL: DSS advice was it could be used as a last resort. I don't know how I formed the view that it was compatible.

GREGGERY: You told the Minister that it would be a new system, based on the contents of the Minute.

CAMPBELL: That's what I was advised...

GREGGERY: You knew.

Campbell sounded genuinely defeated there in conceding that being advised of something represents that you have actual knowledge of it. Welcome to the real world, Kathryn.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: There was a significant, and obvious, change from the previous system.

CAMPBELL: If the customer didn't engage, as a last resort

HOLMES: If it was truly a last resort, DHS would have used information-gathering powers to capture employer data, or anything

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: So it was not, by definition, a last resort, as you could have acted in other ways and didn't.

CAMPBELL: That's true.

I would like to thank Commissioner Holmes for insisting that words do actually mean things at this point.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: The annual report is significantly misleading. It has the effect of communicating that DHS' position is there has been no procedural change, when the opposite is true.

CAMPBELL: It could be more accurate.

Campbell continues to negotiate with reality.

#RobodebtRC

Quote from DSS* annual report is:

'The introduction of this online portal did not change how data-matching [was conducted], however the initial rollout gave rise to public controversy'

GREGGERY: Regardless of your interpretation, it's misleading.

CAMPBELL: I didn't write it.

GREGGERY: Did you understand actual fortnightly income requirement of Social Security Act at the time of executive minute to Morrison? Did you understand the proposal would be unlawful? What was your state of mind at the moment it was finalised?

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I understood from the brief that we'd need to work further with DSS. Didn't turn my mind to legal advice having changed.

GREGGERY: You understood the core function of legislative change in your brief to Morrison to be relating to the actual income requirement.

GREGGERY: You're not answering my question. You previously gave evidence to this effect, would you like to see it?

Her previous answer is displayed on the screen. It reads 'Yes.' Incredible stuff.

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I didn't turn my mind to legislative change.

GREGGERY: You ought to have been concerned as you were the Secretary of the Department

CAMPBELL: But DSS was responsible for the legislative change

HOLMES: Do you know that Ms. Wilson gave evidence that DHS misled DSS?

CAMPBELL: I did not know that. That's not yet been put to me.

HOLMES: Okay...:)

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Question remains and I don't think you're answering, DHS was responsible for the lawfulness of the implementation of the OCI program.

CAMPBELL: Yes.

GREGGERY: This proposal was worth $1.2bn. Shouldn't you have ensured that it was legally compliant?

CAMPBELL: DSS lol

CAMPBELL: I couldn't possibly sit down and deal with every one of the programs we were running.

GREGGERY: So you effectively delegated your responsibility to DSS?

CAMPBELL: I don't agree.

GREGGERY: But you took no other positive steps.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: I'm not asking you who's responsibility it was. I'm saying it follows from the evidence that you've given the Commission is that you effectively delegated your obligations.

CAMPBELL: I don't agree.

GREGGERY: So, what did you do personally then?

CAMPBELL: I was busy.

GREGGERY: You're taking a very big risk as a Secretary, by not satisfying yourself of the lawfulness of your Department's programs.

CAMPBELL: I had 8 deputy secretaries in a department of 35,000

GREGGERY: You took a calculated risk.

CAMPBELL: It was necessary to delegate.

GREGGERY: So you didn't personally seek legal advice and you can't say who did.

CAMPBELL: I haven't been able to access any documents to prove otherwise.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Is it really your evidence that you were intimately involved in the development of the proposal with Ms. Golightly, and then never saw it again until the program was underway?

CAMPBELL: Very unnecessarily long answer to the effect of 'yes'

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Did you recall attending the Expenditure Review Committee in 2015?

CAMPBELL: No.

GREGGERY: With Mr. Morrison, Mr. Pratt? Don't remember?

CAMPBELL: There were many such meetings in the ERC.

GREGGERY: If you were present it would be to speak to the OCI proposal?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

GREGGERY: You wouldn't attend something like this without being briefed?

CAMPBELL: Standard practice.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Would include funding received by DHS, projected savings?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

GREGGERY: Suggesting to you the OCI proposal was a significant proposal in the context of that budget round for DHS.

CAMPBELL: One among many...like no jab no pay (lmao)

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: How is it you can be involved in clearing costings without having seen the NPP?

CAMPBELL: I wasn't responsible for the costing and I hadn't not seen it. The costings I would have signed off on were Departmental costs of running the program.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: So you cleared DHS' side of a ledger with DSS, in a vacuum?

CAMPBELL: I don't recall actually having the NPP at all.

GREGGERY: But how could you prepare your costings in isolation from the rest of the proposal? How would you understand it without the NPP?

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: Discussions between lower-level officers, existing procedures, etc

GREGGERY: You were comfortable clearing these without seeing the rest of the proposal?

CAMPBELL: We weren't always able to see them cross-department. We'd do it to the best of our ability.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: How did you know how much money DHS needed to implement the measure without having actually seen the measure?

CAMPBELL: It was worked out at officer level, outlined to me in a Secretary's brief. We have that already.

GREGGERY: Not even a draft of the NPP?

#RobodebtRC

And with that we adjourn another morning session from somewhere deep within Kathryn Campbell's baroquely disorienting mind palace. Please take a suit and be mindful to surface at a safe and steady rate, to avoid decompression sickness.

#RobodebtRC

Campbell's ongoing struggle with the concept of 'actual knowledge' as existing in her personal brain, even if someone else was responsible for putting it there, it is downright weird. It's one of the simplest legal concepts at play. #RobodebtRC

https://twitter.com/SamT57498755/status/1600305026106523650?s=20&t=szGJWMLJlbKIDAhM2VEImA

We're back with the request to the Secretary to clear DSS' costings in appropriating some $230mil in '15-'16 budget to operate the OCI. Campbell is provided a hard copy. 'Business Owners' listed are Golightly, several others, all from within DHS.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: All of the features of the 2015 minute that refer to legislative change have been removed here in favour of a single sentence?

CAMPBELL: It's a costings document, don't think it's definitive on legality

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: But it's surely not an accurate costing if it doesn't properly describe the major features of the scheme?

CAMPBELL: It represented the position of the Department at the time

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You had the opportunity to correct the representations made about the scheme in this document and you didn't?

CAMPBELL: I wouldn't have gone through every line of this. Could I have? Yes, but my mind at the time was to agree to the costing.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You can't recall if you even read it or not.

CAMPBELL: I suspect that I did and that I was okay with sending it to Finance. I accept that in the document there is different material that I didn't challenge. My mind was to the costing, not legality.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You'd agree that your admission on your knowledge about the Minute applies here, too?

CAMPBELL: The purpose of this document was to get me to agree to documents. It would have been better to have a more fulsome explanation.

GREGGERY: It's not the truth of the proposal

CAMPBELL: I agree it's a misrepresentation, but a misrepresentation *to* me (lol). I'm not sure I would have identified it in the quick turnaround.

GREGGERY: Is that because you accepted the difference between what was expressed and what you'd previously agreed to?

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I don't think I observed that it was different.

GREGGERY: How is that possible?

CAMPBELL: I was clearing hundreds of costings. I wasn't clearing legal advice

GREGGERY: This is why you didn't seek any, isn't it? You thought it was sorted?

CAMPBELL: No...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You were content for a misrepresented position to be forwarded to the Finance Department.

CAMPBELL: I didn't identify any misrepresentation.

GREGGERY: How can you be so sure, if you've just said you can't remember things from 7 years ago?

CAMPBELL: Because numbers(?)

January 2015 email between Golightly and Campbell sent from her phone. So you weren't in the office? Not sure. Could have been at home? Perhaps. Revised draft compliance brief and attachments. In it, Campbell is saying the brief is looking more 'punchy'.

#RobodebtRC

Campbell is identifying a pretty specific typo in the ATO data in the email.

GREGGERY: This shows you were obsessed with the detail of documents you'd review.

CAMPBELL: No, it's just one email. I don't think that assumption is open to you (?)

#RobodebtRC

To remind us, we've heard extensive evidence of a culture of autocracy and fear within DHS under Campbell and Golightly's leadership from more junior staff, including specific allegations of bullying and abusive behaviour.

#RobodebtRC

Overall she seems to have trouble accepting that the findings and narrative resulting from this process will be entirely out of her control, and thankfully in the hands of people who are genuine professionals.

#RobodebtRC

There is some shuffling so Campbell can review a hard copy of a letter between Morrison and the Finance Minister, which is attached to the email which is currently exhibited. It's seemingly under a claim by the Commonwealth.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Do you think it's realistic that, despite the ongoing cross-departmental review of costings, you didn't see the final New Policy Proposal?

CAMPBELL: There were a number of measures in this round that didn't proceed...

Some document confusion interrupts.

#RobodebtRC

Some emails were out of sequence there, but they show discussions of Campbell being sent her costings clearance and returning it around 45 minutes later that evening. Attached is the Secretary briefing that was exhibited before. It reminds her of the major elements of the OCI.

GREGGERY: Now that we can see your memory was jogged, did you identify any concerns on how the OCI was represented.

CAMPBELL: No, I missed them.

GREGGERY: You worked with Ms. Golightly on a series of drafts that all identified new aspects to the proposal.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Proposal that was worked on directly with the Minister's office, a consultation that took several weeks. You're saying thereafter, you didn't notice that the language to describe the program had significantly changed to be inconsistent with the minute?

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I'm concerned, counsel, that you're implying this was the only thing we were working on (no-one is saying this)

HOLMES: As earlier, there wasn't a program with a comparable scale, was there? Have you identified one?

CAMPBELL: Pensioner assets test, no jab no pay...

These are all comparable in terms of numbers affected and scale of costings according to Campbell.

HOLMES: But what I asked specifically was whether there was something that made this onerous an ask of recipients.

CAMPBELL: It wasn't the only big measure....

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: No, but it was the most onerous and significant in terms of fairness, reasonableness and legality. You didn't have any concerns?

CAMPBELL: I thought it was reasonable in 2015. I was looking at costings...

HOLMES: No...wouldn't you want to know how it worked in detail?

GREGGERY: You knew at the start of 2017, you came back from holidays early, that the program had been implemented in the way you said it would be in the way described in the 2015 minute.

CAMPBELL: Yes.

GREGGERY: Which means you knew how it worked.

CAMPBELL: I didn't review...

GREGGERY: So between the 12 Feb 2015 minute, and 9 March ERC consideration, you really were looking elsewhere than the detail of these documents, because you were simply very busy?

CAMPBELL: I was very busy. I wasn't looking at the legal requirements. I was looking at money.

GREGGERY: So you're saying the measure was all about getting money.

CAMPBELL: What was the question, sorry?

GREGGERY: You were seeking $250m in appropriations for the scheme, and $1.2bn saved.

#RobodebtRC

Looking at the tabulations in the costings clearance and attachments for a bit. A costing description reads 'This integrated package of proposals will increase the likelihood of detection for fraudsters'. Fraudsters! 'FRAUDSTERS'.

#RobodebtRC #Fraudsters

Greggery taking us down to the money requested to deal with OCI appeals. They have identified a figure of 2.5% of cases being likely to appeal. Presumably someone in your Department had done some predictive analysis?

CAMPBELL: I don't know.

#RobodebtRC

To the assumptions in the funding model - unit price to pursue each debt ($918 per Newstart recipient is the most expensive), volumes, net dollars, predicted changes to recipient profiles including who was likely to come off payments, etc.

#RobodebtRC

Thanks, that was kind of a guess because I needed a loo break lol:

https://twitter.com/kplaysrpgs/status/1600367785947074561?s=20&t=PenmIbhxvFZ2wa0TiseCLA

Campbell refers to 'what is called 'Robodebt'', as she is still unable to accept that this is what we and eventually the rest of the entire world decided to call it and her opinion is completely fucking irrelevant #RobodebtRC

Sorry, but fuck you, on a personal level. People died because of you. I've been listening to and reporting your bullshit all day. Shove your semantics up your fucking arse. #RobodebtRC

Right, back to serious business. Greggery is showing Campbell that the representation of the OCI made it into Cabinet documents. Again, Campbell says that she was looking at it from a financial, and not a legal perspective.

#RobodebtRC

There's stuff about regulatory burden on small business which she identifies as appearing post 2015 minute (the justification for not using their information-gathering powers to satisfy any 'last resort' requirement)

#RobodebtRC

Greggery is showing that it doesn't really change the nature of the program, most of the numbers etc are similar. Campbell says is shows there were other people involved in it. Greggery continues it doesn't change anything about averaging or any other features.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Surely as Secretary you would look at any proposal for which you sought appropriations in the Budget.

CAMPBELL: We did not get everything as described before. We would get extracts of detail from other Departments. I haven't seen this document.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: So because you haven't seen these documents, you can't help the Commission in any way.

CAMPBELL: Not what I said, I'm trying to help...

GREGGERY: Let me rephrase. Someone within your Department would have done this. You cannot identify who it was.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You can't say who is responsible for the Department adopting a different legal position, without your intervention, and without you noticing.

CAMPBELL: Somewhere that changed. I don't know where it changed.

GREGGERY: But you've previously accepted knowledge in 2015.

GREGGERY: Can I take it you didn't see ANY of these documents?

CAMPBELL: I can't recall, it was 7 years ago.

#RobodebtRC

Different topic now, media: @CPSUnion and @GetUp in Jan 2017 found the first whistleblower. Fairfax is seeking a response. It's an anonymous account from a compliance officer which identifies a broad scope of 'deliberately wrongful actions' in the OCI.

#RobodebtRC

@CPSUnion @GetUp GREGGERY: Do you recall this critique of your Department?

CAMPBELL: Not specifically, there were a number of these. Anonymous ones were not sure if they were employed.

HOLMES: Do you think the CPSU would commit fraud by lying about their employment?

CAMPBELL: I don't know.

@CPSUnion @GetUp GREGGERY: The media criticisms were a serious issue in 2017. Would you accept the characterisation of the scheme in the letter as being 'in crisis'

CAMPBELL: I don't usually use the word 'crisis'. There was a lot of media lol.

Fucking wow.

#RobodebtRC

@CPSUnion @GetUp CAMPBELL: By this point I was very concerned that recipients didn't have enough opportunities to engage with the system (yes, we know)

GREGGERY: But there was no focus on the factual question that the automation would produce incorrect debts?

#RobodebtRC

@CPSUnion @GetUp Campbell describes her hyperfocus on this specific part of her response as being a commitment to procedural fairness. Very worried that people will be thrown upon the system they've created for money reasons.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You're surely not claiming you're excused from implementing an unlawful system by being ignorant of the law?

CAMPBELL: No...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You're saying DSS provided legal advice to cabinet with the word 'no' which was sufficient to explain the differences to the minute, even though nothing had changed.

CAMPBELL: No...

HOLMES: You knew that wasn't the proposal that you'd put.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: You had no clue during the implementation in 2016 of what was going on? At all?

CAMPBELL: Significant period of leave in 2016.

HOLMES: You weren't involved in ramping up the program later that year?

CAMPBELL: No.

HOLMES: So you had no clue?

CAMPBELL: Left to others.

HOLMES: I'm still interested in whether you had a clue, not just that you left it to others (actual knowledge problems again).

CAMPBELL: No.

HOLMES: Didn't some aged pensioners get targeted?

CAMPBELL: Yes, wasn't unusual for ICT hiccups.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: A couple of thousand cases didn't attract your attention?

CAMPBELL: Escalation brief indicated it was resolved.

HOLMES: But didn't you want to find out what was going on?

CAMPBELL: In hindsight, I wish I'd dug more into that.

#RobodebtRC

Looking now at another email identifying an issue in late 2016: the system wasn't generating reminder letters to people who hadn't paid. More commitment to procedural fairness. The email shows Campbell taking a keen interest in how this was missed in testing.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: This shows that you did pay close attention to the scheme, doesn't it?

CAMPBELL: Well, yeah, now I was because of all the media interest (lmao)

#RobodebtRC

Internal email that was just discussed identifying 75 aged pensioners who had their payments cancelled, up to 2700 people with debts calculated 'incorrectly' due to ICT failures.

GREGGERY: So no concern for the larger issue that averaging itself is producing incorrect debts?

HOLMES: Ms. Campbell, my point to you is really that when you hit on problems like this, aged pensioners being cut off benefits - why wouldn't this prompt any closer look at the mechanics of the system?

CAMPBELL: The computers were old. They failed a lot.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: But if you knew you had an unreliable IT system, isn't that all the more reason for you to understand the demands this very large program, 800,000 customers, is placing on that system?

CAMPBELL: I had to roll out many programs.

HOLMES: One among many...

#RobodebtRC

Greggery brings up an email Campbell sent from overseas to Golightly. 'I see a savings option on welfare has been proposed....'

Campbell attempts to frame this merely a cheerio.

CAMPBELL: So I'm not allowed to talk to people? :(

GREGGERY: I never said that.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: I'm just saying it shows a continuing interest in the Robodebt scheme while you were otherwise on deployment...

CAMPBELL: We're public servants. We're boring people, we like to talk about this stuff. Do you have any other emails where I just said hello?

#RobodebtRC

Mercifully, Campbell is released and the hearing is adjourned for the day. She'll be back on Friday to say more unintentionally revealing and contradictory things. It was nevertheless a highly productive day, thanks to the dogged persistence of Greggery and Holmes.

#RobodebtRC

Thanks for stopping by once again and to those of you also watching able to quickly correct me when I miss stuff or mischaracterise it, which is always welcomed and encouraged :)

Tip jar below, livetweeting this stuff is not easy and I'm on Centrelink:

paypal.com/paypalme/maxim…

I am currently working on a longer piece on the ethics and political economy of welfare debt in Australia more broadly. It's currently an 1800-word pseudo-outline that I've mostly been writing *while* livetweeting. Keep watching the skies...

#RobodebtRC

https://twitter.com/AusMMT/status/1600359394860232704

This wasn't totally accurate - I recall what she was saying was that the issues arose at that point from the system being newly-upgraded. Which they did because they were old, because every Government ICT system was laid down during the Cold War lol.

https://twitter.com/maximumcuddles/status/1600379126351040513?s=20&t=4aN6eRA-LuDgO2lIuq6fbQ