Thread by @maximumwelfare

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

The Royal Commission is now in session. Here is the stream for today:

#RobodebtRC

robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au

Housekeeping: Angus Scott KC says Allyson Essex will not be required for further questioning. She wasn't excused, but now she is, on the basis of Mr. Philp's testimony. That doesn't sound great for her...

#RobodebtRC

The first witness is Barry Jackson, the former Deputy Secretary of Service Delivery Operations at DHS. He acted as Secretary now and then, including over the 2016/17 Xmas break.

SCOTT: In the context of media interest, inquiries from Minister?

JACKSON: Correct.

#RobodebtRC

[Email from Jackson on 6 Jan 2017, asking Malisa Golightly 'did we find out whether averaging is in the lego?']

JACKSON: Golightly had told me it had always been done, so I asked to actually see some evidence to show it was allowed.

#RobodebtRC

SCOTT: You say there was frequent commentary about it, from whom?

JACKSON: Probably every meeting that I went to about the Robodebt scheme. 'Done for 30 years', Golightly, Harfield, Storen. 'We've always done it that way' is normally a red flag for me to ask why.

#RobodebtRC

SCOTT: When you say 'advice', what were you looking for?

JACKSON: I'd be looking for an opinion from the AGS, to justify to my mind that when we were telling people 'it's always been done this way', that it was correct.

#RobodebtRC

SCOTT: And did you ever see any?

JACKSON: Golightly passed it to Paul Menzies-McVey, never got a reply before I finished acting on 9 Jan 2017.

#RobodebtRC

Jackson provided verbal advice to Kathryn Campbell that he'd raised the issue with Golightly. He also says he asked about the legislative authority for averaging in a meeting with Porter and Tudge.

#RobodebtRC

SCOTT: Who, apart from yourself, would have the authority to withdraw such a request?

JACKSON: Interesting question. I'm not sure I could directly answer that, but I'd be surprised if anyone other than the Secretary themselves could withdraw it.

#RobodebtRC

Looking at email chain where Campbell and Golightly and the Minister's office discuss @1petermartin's 'Weapon of Math Destruction' article. He doesn't recall the content, but he does recall the headline.

It's a really good headline.

#RobodebtRC

Campbell's counsel Flynn is asking Jackson to accept that his evidence is unreliable because it was a while ago and he doesn't remember good. He is doing a good job of resisting some fairly reaching questions. He seems a reliable witness to me.

#RobodebtRC

Flynn suggests he doesn't remember the handover with Campbell because he didn't make notes, which is a faintly ridiculous question (according to me)

No-one made any notes of this thing, and even then, Mr. Jackson made a note of asking about averaging...

#RobodebtRC

Mr. Jackson is doing a good job of resisting Kathryn Campbell's counsel, who isn't working with a whole lot. Difficult job.

Flynn is saying that because he didn't forward the email to Campbell, he didn't consider averaging important.

He asked for legal advice!

#RobodebtRC

Justin Greggery KC is here to question Kathryn Campbell.

The bundle of exhibits is *large*.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You met with Morrison and his Chief of Staff, Charles Wann on 30 December 2014.

CAMPBELL: No. I don't recall.

G: Here are Mr. Wann's hand-written notes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Under the heading 'Most excited', 'MyGov website, move everyone online'...does this sit generally well with you recollection of the topics at the meeting?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: Reference to 'entitlements and policy based', would that have been you?

C: Yes...

#RobodebtRC

Greggery is, seemingly, going to take Ms. Campbell through the entire chronology of the Robodebt Scheme today. I hope you are ready. It is arguable that I'm not.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: By the time the Executive Minute was prepared for Morrison in February 2015, DSS' position on the 'possible' need for legislative change had changed to a more definite one?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Morrison was interviewed on the radio on 22 Jan 2015, soon after you met with Payne. Do oyu recall Golightly emailed you with a link to the interview that afternoon? It referred to a 'crackdown on welfare', remember that?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: A statement by the interviewer (Graeme Richardson) that the previous Minister, Kevin Andrews 'seemed happier handing out relationship vouchers than cracking down on welfare recipients'. Indicated direction of Morrison's leadership?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Ms. Payne's statement records a phone meeting with you and Golightly on 2 Feb 2015 to discuss the Minute. A note 'what can we do w/o having to legislate', do you recall that conversation a reference to the phrase 'cracking down'?

CAMPBELL: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: I can show you her handwritten note, would you like that?

#RobodebtRC

Campbell is giving very clipped, yes/no responses, perhaps reflecting she is somewhat cornered by the weight of evidence here.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: You mentioned criticism coming from advocates on 'cracking down', what was the Departmental attitude to that?

CAMPBELL: The Department listened, to ensure we were operating fairly and there were no failures.

H (resting face on hand): Mmm-hmm...

[Bullshit.]

#RobodebtRC

There has been a significant change of strategy here, it is distinct from every other public performance from Kathryn Campbell to date. We've never seen her like this.

#RobodebtRC

[She is trying to go line-by-line on the various drafts of the Executive Minutes with Greggery to buy time. Trench warfare has been largely obsolete since 1918. I wouldn't expect her to be across that.]

CAMPBELL (monotone): Those documents are the same.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Why didn't you have any concern that legislation was required?

CAMPBELL: It was DSS' responsibility.

HOLMES: Did it occur to you this legislation would have to affect entitlements retrospectively?

C: We relied on DSS' advice about legislation.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: No further concerns about affecting welfare recipients' entitlements retrospectively?

CAMPBELL: Not at the time, Commissioner.

GREGGERY: Did you have any practical sense of how that would have to work?

C: No. I wasn't responsible for legislation.

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I understood recipients would be ask to confirm past income.

GREGGERY: Your understanding stopped at that point? What about where they didn't update?

C: I hadn't turned my mind to it.

G: You clearly had, as you read the Minute...

#RobodebtRC

[Back to the trenches of arguing what individual words mean and not their overall context or effect. This is a good strategy for dominating subordinate employees in the APS, but it is not a good strategy for giving evidence publicly to Justin Greggery KC]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You didn't turn your mind to any of the practical requirements of the Minute, because it was DSS' responsibility?

CAMPBELL: No.

HOLMES: How could you not worry about that?

C: Relied on DSS.

H: What about your customers?

C: They're DSS customers too.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: They're YOUR customers, too. Retrospective change of entitlement wasn't a concern of yours?

CAMPBELL: They were discussed with DSS

GREGGERY: Did you consider the question of fairness?

C: Focus was opportunity for the recipient to engage with the system.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: So did it cross your mind?

CAMPBELL: I considered that would be the fair way of doing it.

G: Did it cross your mind at any other time?

C: Yes. In January 2017. We put debt letters on hold while we made the system user-friendly.

[USER-FRIENDLY!!!!!!!!!!]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: So then how was the fairness of retrospective change to entitlement considered?

CAMPBELL: With attempts to contact the recipient.

HOLMES: And if they didn't contact you, it just served them right, did it?

C: No.

H: Isn't it just intrinsically unfair?

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I thought it was legal. I now know that isn't the case.

HOLMES: So you thought if it was legal, it was okay?

C: No.

H: I'm just trying to understand your position...why did you think it was legal if they didn't respond?

C: [Last resort]

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: So if it was legal, then it was fair?

CAMPBELL: No.

H: If they didn't respond, fairness wasn't an issue?

C: Last resort.

H: So we're back to if it was legal it was fair...

C: I thought procedural fairness had been achieved.

[That is an insane position.]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: No legislation was produced by DSS, did you know that?

CAMPBELL: I didn't know that.

G: You didn't keep up-to-date with legislation that might affect your Department?

C: No.

[Only when it might be an excuse to do whatever you want, in the absence.]

#RobodebtRC

[More chronology as the Minute progresses to Expenditure Review Committee by 18 March 2015]

GREGGERY: Did you become aware of any legal advice which said legislation wasn't required to implement measure?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: Did you ask for it?

C: No.

[Barry did...]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Did Payne, Morrison or anyone from their offices convey to you that the PAYG measure was to progress without legislative change?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: Anyone at all?

C: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Any concern of what could be achieved without legislative change, as you discussed with Payne?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: Well, why not?

C: I had seen legislation pass the Senate.

G: What legislation?

C: Aged pension stuff.

G: When?

C: I don't know.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: How did you know about it?

CAMPBELL: Found out about it in the media.

G: And you don't recall when that was?

G: No.

[Greggery is quitely crushing this, she can't possibly keep track of the trail the no's and don't recalls in a coherent way]

#RobodebtRC

[Campbell is unable to recall, according to her, when she became aware the Executive Minute was signed by Morrison, or what engagement with DSS took place around that. Oh, hold on, she does remember Golightly was talking to Serena Wilson, isn't that funny?]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Does your email in this chain of the Budget savings proposal indicate that you kept a close eye on the development of matters relevant to the Budget consideration of DHS?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

#RobodebtRC

[Ms. Campbell's lawyer was just accusing another witness of being unreliable because he could only remember things on the documents. It's much more reliable to not remember anything at all, obviously. Does she realise this is a Royal Commission, not a court martial?]

#RobodebtRC

[Looking at the draft of the Minute with all the tracked changes, with 'fortnightly attribution distributed over duration of payment' crossed out, replaced with 'new approach will not change how income is assessed or calculated']

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Did Golightly ever convey to you, of her conversations with Serena Wilson, that agreement had been reached over this change?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: No further interest in the drafting of the NPP after Morrison signed?

C: Yes.

#RobodebtRC

[But it was 8 years ago, how do you remember?]

GREGGERY: Did you notice that this changed at any time?

CAMPBELL: In 2017 I asked why the Commonwealth hadn't introduced legislation.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: Did you ask 'why do we keep saying nothing had changed'?

CAMPBELL: I thought nothing had changed, if the recipient had engaged.

HOLMES: (staring in disbelief for a minute): It was a massive change!

[They take the morning recess. Back in 15 minutes.]

#RobodebtRC

Right, I'll be taking a look at this next bit. Sitting down with @JennyMi11374978. Let's go.

The Royal Commission has returned.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: An assertion in the New Policy Proposal that there was no legislation required. Were you ever given any assurances about this?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: In delegating your authority to Golightly, do you accept responsibility as Secretary?

C: For her actions, yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Do you recall your communications with the Minister to be informed by these talking points from Golightly?

CAMPBELL: I don't. I've never seen these before today.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Before the NPP that was drafted by DHS could be sent to DSS, that required Minister Payne's approval?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: Was Payne intimately involved in the development of the NPP?

C: I don't recall.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You don't recall how the position of 'no change' was arrived at?

CAMPBELL: It's not clear to me that I saw this email.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Ms. Canning forwarded the costing work done by DHS to the Minister. Insofar as the costing numbers were being worked on, they required involvement from the Department of Finance?

CAMPBELL: That's what this document says.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You were closely involved as Secretary?

CAMPBELL: Yes, when it came to me to clear the costing.

G: And you didn't notice the change regarding the language around legislation?

C: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Do you have any independent knowledge of this other than the documents?

CAMPBELL: No, I don't.

G: Given you made no inquiries as to the language re: legislative change, did you provide any assurances to Minister Payne?

C: No.

G: Anyone from DHS?

C: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Did Payne ever ask for any?

CAMPBELL: Not to my knowledge.

#RobodebtRC

[Email to Scott Britton that the Australian Government Solicitor has cleared the NPP.]

GREGGERY: Were you ever informed that the AGS advice was confined to the constitutional/legislative expenditure in the proposal?

CAMPBELL: Yes, understood from the NPP template.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You'd agree the savings aren't insignificant?

CAMPBELL: They're significant, but the operating Budget of the Departments are very large.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: What steps did you take, regarding your obligations under the PGPA Act, to satisfy yourself that the expenditure under the scheme was lawful?

CAMPBELL: I don't recall other than relying on Golightly.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Why didn't you take steps?

CAMPBELL: There were 58 measures, I didn't get advice for all of them.

G: How many of those previously indicated a need for legislative change?

C: I'd have to go through them all.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: It's one thing to rely on DSS, you have personal obligations as Secretary.

CAMPBELL: If you're suggesting I should have sought legal advice, I accept that now.

G: You relied on Golightly, who didn't indicate any such need?

C: Not that I recall.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Did it occur to you to ask, in the course of clearing the costings, how the proposal came to include no need for legislative change?

CAMPBELL: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Reduction in staffing numbers, explained by the manual process would be replaced by the automated solution?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: Customers had to engage in an online process. Did you become aware from the pilot that a large number of persons hadn't?

C: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Did you read the costings document?

CAMPBELL: I would have read the top lines of it, not in detail.

[Who reads things?]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Was it your understanding that Minister Payne was closely involved in the process of iterating drafts of the NPP? Emails here between her office and Emily Canning from DHS?

CAMPBELL: I don't recall.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Email sent to you that the comments entered into the draft NPP had been cleared by Minister Payne. You respond 'Good outcome'?

[Sent from my iPhone]

CAMPBELL: Yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Suggestion in this email that DHS 'make it clear up front that this pays for itself and is a net saving each year', was this ever raised with you?

CAMPBELL: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Did you make any inquiries as to the use of the 'Risk Assessment Potential Tool' in developing the NPP?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: You relied on your Department?

C: Yes.

G: And so you accept responsibility as Secretary?

C: Yes, although I didn't see this email.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: This email mentions there are '4 DHS NPPs left'

CAMPBELL: Responsibility for drafting, not implementing...

G: Yes, and you also would have been responsible for implementing them. Do you now accept would have paid close attention to them?

C: I do.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You were informed on 11 March 2015 that the revised NPPs had been signed off by Payne.

CAMPBELL: I can see those words.

G: And you maintain that you hadn't noticed the change?

C: I had not noticed.

[Then what was so 'good' about the outcome?]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You were aware by 12 March that you might be required to attend the Expenditure Review Committee.

CAMPBELL: I don't recall. I can't access my diaries?

G: Why not?

C: That's a matter for the Commonwealth, they haven't provided them to me.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You were copied into a draft DSS Portfolio Budget Submision, including the PAYG NPP, did you notice the changes then?

CAMPBELL: No. There were a few comments made in respect of that measure.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Invitation to you for an 'ERC briefing' on 18 March. Do you recall attending that meeting?

CAMPBELL: No. Haven't got my diaries. There would have been other people attending to brief the Minister on specific measures.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: One week later, the 25th, an invitation to an ERC briefing from Minister Payne, do you recall that?

CAMPBELL: I don't.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Email from 24 March relating to a phone call between you and Golightly, and Mark Withnell's meeting with Treasury. Golightly referred to updating the ERC briefs and asked when it was going to the Minister.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Does Golightly accurately record your interest, here, in the briefs to go the the ERC?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: You were briefed with talking points ahead of your ERC appearance?

C: That's what the email says, yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Reflects that you anticipated attending, and were preparing accordingly?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: That you were engaging with Golightly, as the Finance position may not agree with your Department?

C: Related to the ASL staffing caps, yes.

[Well remembered!]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: And you accept that you did attend the ERC meeting on that afternoon.

CAMPBELL: I accept I'm on the attendance list, doesn't mean I was there for all the items. How those meetings worked was-

[Greggery has already moved on to the next exhibit]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Your name is there for Item 5a, the DSS Portfolio Budget submission.

CAMPBELL: That doesn't mean I was there for the entire item...

G: Are you suggesting you weren't present?

C: I'm not saying that, I just can't say that I was.

[Okay.]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You can see the language and figures that is presented to the ERC is the same as is presented in the NPP to Morrison?

CAMPBELL: What is your question?

G: Is it the same?

C: Yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You knew the savings couldn't be achieved without averaging? The staffing levels would be reduced.

C: It was one part of it. We were building an engagement system.

HOLMES: Are you saying that it wouldn't reduce staff?

C: It required additional staff.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: The proportion of increased staff related to a much greater number of interventions? That is, the staff intervention per review was decreased, although the numbers of staff increased.

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: Describe it as an exponential increase?

C: No...

#RobodebtRC

[Getting into the weeds of what numbers are bigger or smaller than other numbers.]

CAMPBELL: Overall number of staff in DHS were decreasing, relating to around another 300 measures. This measure wasn't about decreasing staff.

GREGGERY: But staff involvement...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You'd accept that the language that there was 'no change' was incorrect?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: It factually misrepresented the scheme?

C: If the recipient didn't respond, yes.

[AAAAAAAAA]

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: There was a manual engagement phase where you walked the recipient through the process.

HOLMES: But in that case, if the recipient didn't respond, averaging was used! Or if they didn't agree in the online system, you devolved to averaging...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: By this document, Cabinet wasn't informed in the transfer of the onus? Nor of the change to how income assessed, nor use of averaging?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: You must agree with me then that it misled Cabinet to that extent?

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: To the extent the recipient didn't engage, I agree.

HOLMES: Even if they didn't engage, it was misleading, you no longer used the compulsory powers?

C: If the recipient had engaged...

H: You were making no other inquiry?

C: We changed that in 2017...

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: You're avoiding the question.

GREGGERY: So, it was misleading to that extent.

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: You were preparing to go to the ERC, you didn't notice the change then?

C: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Your evidence is that a document that misled Cabinet went unnoticed by you? Despite your close involvement in the costings?

CAMPBELL: Yes. I don't recall why.

G: Was there pressure placed on you by Ministers?

C: Not to say no legislation was required.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: No pressure to not mention averaging from anyone?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: So you accept responsibility for this misleading Cabinet, as the Secretary of your Department?

C: Yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Was it by your inadvertence, then, that this document came before the ERC?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: It's a significant oversight, isn't it?

C: Yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: There's another reading that it wasn't inadvertent, that you chose to change the language to avoid the need for legislation?

CAMPBELL: I've never been in a Department that misled the Government, nor have I been involved in such an operation.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: What about the case that Morrison had requested the measure, and it was not possible to pass legislation, were you put in an impossible position?

CAMPBELL: I wouldn't have thought about it, legislation could have been passed.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: The first suggestion the legislation wasn't required, in the absence of contrary legal advice, came from your Department.

CAMPBELL: I've only seen that today, and I don't know why that occurred.

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: DSS were the ones to advise no legislation required.

HOLMES: Ms. Wilson's evidence is that she did that on an agreement with Golightly, that DSS would desist. Her evidence was she was misled by that.

C: I wasn't at that meeting, I don't know what went on.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: There's a strong possibility, at least, that it came from this meeting. It would be unlikely that Golightly did this without your knowledge?

CAMPBELL: I don't recall discussing it with Golightly, I don't recall giving her permission.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: Is it likely she would have done that without your permission?

CAMPBELL: No. I would expect that she would have worked on that with Ms. Wilson within the confines of the law.

H: Well, somebody clearly didn't.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Here's an email of a staff message, approved by you.

CAMPBELL: That's not my writing...

G: Do you dispute that you cleared it?

C [weirdly aggressively]: No.

G: 'No change to how income is assessed', the same misleading position given to all staff.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: Why?

CAMPBELL: I was operating from the assumption of recipient engaging.

H: I thought you just agreed with me even that wasn't true?

C: I know that now...

[The Royal Commission has adjourned for lunch. They will return in 90 minutes, at 1430AEST]

#RobodebtRC

Thanks for joining me this morning.

This is the final evidence given by a senior officer of DHS/Services Australia.

Probably as close as we're getting to a climax, which is quite deflating.

As always, you can support my coverage below:

#RobodebtRC

gofundme.com/f/robodebt-roy…

Is there an Inconspicuous Service Cross?

Can one be arranged?

#RobodebtRC

Bumping this again, so we remain focused on those affected by the negligence and deceit of people like Kathryn Campbell:

#RobodebtRC

https://twitter.com/maximumwelfare/status/1632596142956630017?s=20

Back in the saddle for the afternoon session. Some housekeeping about Cabinet references yet again.

Here is the stream to follow along:

robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: On 7 Feb 2017, you received an email from frontline compliance officer Colleen Taylor, emphasising that your message to staff was inaccurate. She says 'your statement tells me that you are being misled'. Did you take any action relating to this?

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I asked Golightly to respond and someone met with her.

GREGGERY: You knew at this stage that there was a change to how debts were assessed?

C: Yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: So why didn't you change your message to staff, knowing it was incorrect?

CAMPBELL: I was focused on engagement with the recipient at that time.

G: They're not mutually exclusive, are they? You could have acknowledged it, why not?

C: I don't know.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: By this time there'd been public criticism by whistleblowers of how debts were assessed. You had rebutted their ideas on 25 January in this all-staff message, when you knew it wasn't true?

CAMPBELL: I accept it should have been caveated...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Why didn't you?

CAMPBELL: I don't know.

G: It's not a small qualification, is it? That if the recipient didn't respond, averaging was used?

C: At that point in time we had stopped averaging...

HOLMES: You mean you'd paused averaging?

C: Paused it, yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You knew by 1 July 2015 that compliance officers would not be contacting employers, and averaging used, if the recipient didn't respond?

CAMPBELL: I'm not sure I turned my mind to that level of detail.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Taylor writes 'as a compliance unit, we should not be stealing from customers', very strong language isn't it? Conveying to you as Secretary that debts were raised, and recovered, that customers didn't owe?

CAMPBELL: I did understand, so we made changes...

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I understood that averaging could be used as a 'last resort' from DSS.

GREGGERY: You understood the practical possibility that a debt could be alleged that isn't in fact owed.

[Campbell's counsel objects, 'debts aren't factual question'? Not sustained]

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I relied on DSS' advice.

GREGGERY: I don't dispute that you did, how did you reconcile that advice with the practical concern you had, that you knew could result in debts that weren't owed?

C: I'm not a lawyer.

G: That doesn't answer my question.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You relied on the 'last resort' advice to resume using averaging. You knew in a practical sense, that it could result in debts that weren't owed?

CAMPBELL: I relied on the legal advice.

G: So it didn't matter? Even though you actually knew it would?

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: So I knew-I balanced...I had no reason to suggest the lawyers were wrong.

GREGGERY: I'm not suggesting you did! Just because you accept that legal proposition, doesn't you proceed irrespective of the practical consequences?

C: [looks confused]

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: The practical consequences were that someone who reported income correctly in the past could have a debt alleged they didn't owe.

CAMPBELL: I didn't go into that level of detail. I don't know that I turned my mind to it.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: A scheme that was to recoup up to $1b??? You didn't consider if it was lawful other than in the case of that advice?

CAMPBELL: I had a very large Department. I relied on others.

G: You didn't tell Ms. Taylor about the 'last resort', did you?

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I don't recall where I approved the response to her...

GREGGERY: This was Ms. Golightly going off on a frolic of her own, was it? What difference is there between asking for a response as Secretary, and approving that response?

C: Could be significant...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Is there anything in the letter that you don't approve of?

CAMPBELL: No...

G: Nowhere in here is it expressed to Ms. Taylor, in response to her concern about stealing, that there is any lawful basis for averaging?

C: No.

G: It avoids it, entirely.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You understood that Ms. Taylor explained to you compliance officers were being instructed not to interrogate customer records, including separation certificates?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: It's all here, in her attachments.

C: I can see that in the documents.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: In circumstances where someone obtained a benefit half-way through a PAYG period, they can be required to provide a payslip or separation certificate.

CAMPBELL: I don't recall seeing this.

G: Do you understand it now?

C: Yes...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: She included the policy not to interrogate the customer record, what was your response?

CAMPBELL: I referred it to Jonathan Hutson and Golightly to respond. I didn't read the documents attached to this email. I didn't read attachments...

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: Weren't you very hands-on during this time? Here's a source of information to you to tell you what's going on, why not leap on it?

CAMPBELL: I wouldn't have understood it. Too much detail, thought it best to refer to someone who would.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: It sounds like you came to that conclusion without having even read it?

CAMPBELL: I read the covering email which said things like...[reading the covering email now to inform her answer] I recall there was a briefing, but I don't have access to it.

[Bruh]

#RobodebtRC

[CW: suicide]

GREGGERY: 13 July 2017 you're emailed to advise about a DHS recipient taking their own life. According to that person's sister, it related to the receipt of a debt letter. Do you recall undertaking an investigation?

CAMPBELL: My recollection is, yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: What form did the investigation take to your recollection?

CAMPBELL: I can't now recall, some correspondence from the Minister.

G: Storen points out the recipient could have been resolved if she had engaged, or if a separation certificate could be found.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: And that the separation certificate wasn't found as it wasn't structured data. This had been raised by Ms. Taylor?

CAMPBELL: That was forwarded to that line area.

G: It seems that wasn't resolved. What steps did you take?

C: I didn't receive this email.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: What did you receive in terms of the outcome of the investigation?

CAMPBELL: That the Department was in contact with the recipient...I'm trying to be careful about how I respond in this sensitive circumstance...don't want to confuse it with another case...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You can't recall receiving the outcome, or what steps you took in response?

CAMPBELL: No, but Storen indicates that they were looking at ways to address it.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Don't you consider it your responsibility, in the case of a suicide, related to a scheme operated by your Department, to order a full investigation?

CAMPBELL: There was a review...I can't find many documents.

G: Doesn't really answer my question.

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I can't recall all the documents...

GREGGERY: We've given them to you, they are before you. You have had a long time to prepare for today. It wasn't followed up in a significant way, do you take responsibility as Secretary?

C: I do, but...[doesn't matter]

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: In January 2017, it was apparent to you there were problems with people even being contacted. People who had averaging applied, and first hearing about it from a debt collector. What did you do about that?

CAMPBELL: We offered a review of those debts.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: You contacted everyone to offer them a review?

CAMPBELL: That's my understanding.

[Uh huh.]

H: You didn't set them aside?

C: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Email to you from Bevan Hannan, 'Hi Malisa, we had a suicide case recently that gives us a good basis for lines on this type of matter'. It suggests a suicide was a basis for a media response, not an investigation. Did you tolerate that?

CAMPBELL: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: What did you do about it?

CAMPBELL: [There are a lot of suicides, garbage about social workers, we worked very hard, suicide isn't the answer (?), this is a completely offensive answer that I will not report further]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: What does that matter if the compliance officer doesn't interrogate the information on the file? It shouldn't have happened!

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: The Minister ordered an investigation into the suicide of Rhys Cauzzo, do you recall this event?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: Was it to provide some assurance that the Department had acted appropriately?

C: It was to find out what had occurred.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Mr. Cauzzo had a Job Capacity Assessment in 2015 for his DSP claim, he reported suicidal ideation. Despite Centrelink having all that information, no vulnerability indicator was recorded, why not?

CAMPBELL: I don't know. That person made a mistake.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: It's not a small mistake, is it?

CAMPBELL: No, but sometimes people make mistakes. I don't know how many JCAs occur every day, it's a lot.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: The letter to Jennifer Miller says the review reported 'minor errors of an administrative nature', tells her that the Department handled interactions respectfully. It's not a minor error is it?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: These weren't genuine reviews, were they?

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: Yes...

GREGGERY: They merely related to the media interest in the suicides.

C: No...

G: Your response to the media article relating to Rhys Cauzzo, was that 'from now on I want to be informed where a claim is made that is inconsistent with our records'.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You said that before any review had been conducted or thought of.

CAMPBELL: I don't think this was in relation to Mr. Cauzzo's death, it was about getting out of engaging with media on a line-by-line basis. I didn't think there was any value in engaging...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Nowhere do you say 'the standard process should be a full investigation'?

CAMPBELL: No, but we did have reviews. Sadly, suicides are common.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: There seems to be indignation here about the distinction between the manual intervention, and OCI, as if it matters? How could it possibly help if it was OCI or not?

CAMPBELL: Staff felt under siege, they were pretty tired. Criticism was it was automated...

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: Manual or not, it still used averaging.

[Campbell starts to respond but Holmes wisely thinks better of tolerating any more of this, and moves on]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: @ACOSS issued a release that the scheme should be abandoned, to prevent further harm. There was no suggestion by you or the Minister that the scheme should be stopped in respect of their concerns?

CAMPBELL: It was paused around this time, can't remember.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: And did that remove the potential for debts to be raised that weren't owed?

CAMPBELL: We tried to improve customer engagement.

G: What steps did you take to comply with the OAIC guidelines?

C: I don't know, delegated to Golightly.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Do you take responsibility for non-compliance?

CAMPBELL: [genuinely mumbling now, so I missed it]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Jan 17, Hannan responds to The Australian that 'DHS works closely with OAIC on a regular basis [etc]', it's attributed to Hank Jongen, the spokesperson for the Department. You had no knowledge as to whether you complied with the guidelines?

CAMPBELL: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Barry Jackson gave evidence that he requested DHS to get legal advice from the AGS. Do you recall handover with him?

CAMPBELL: Not other than 'welcome back'...was engaging with Golightly.

G: Not the person acting for you?

C: She was closer to the topic.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You were in contact with Golightly while you were on leave according to this email?

CAMPBELL: No...I only had limited phone coverage.

G: Golightly didn't inform you at any point that Mr. Jackson had set a request for legal advice in train?

C: No...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Can you explain why this request didn't proceed, when you returned from leave?

CAMPBELL: I didn't know Mr. Jackson had made the request...[answers this exact way twice]

G: He says he raised averaging with Golightly, and she said he was advancing request?

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: If it was advanced, Ms. Golightly didn't inform you of it?

CAMPBELL: I don't know.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Did Musolino advise you she'd requested existing legal advices, & they were to the effect that averaging couldn't raise debts?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: Would you require her to inform you?

C: I don't know her state of mind.

G: Was it important to you?

C: Yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Do you recall Mr. Hutson informing you of the AIAL conference, which touched on the debt recovery scheme?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: Do you recall that it was a 'sensitive topic', according to your Department?

C: No...

[Bullshit]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You were informed Mr. Hanks spoke at the conference, was highly critical, suggested a test case?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: Criticised your comments at Senate Estimates. What steps did you take to satisfy yourself the scheme was lawful?

C: Unaware of who he was.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: You were at least aware he was a QC?

CAMPBELL: Yes...

H: He's in advance of any lawyer at DHS.

C: At the time, I placed more weight on what they were told me, Finn Pratt's letter to Ombudsman.

H: He's not a lawyer, you have a responsibility to inquire.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You appreciated the Ombudsman didn't concern themselves with the legality?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: You're just turning a blind eye, aren't you? You didn't want to see legal advice, because you knew what it would tell you?

C: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: When you became DSS Secretary, they were in possession in 2018 of draft advice from Clayton Utz. It ought to be raised with you, and with DHS?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: You projected to DSS and DHS, didn't you, that you didn't want to see legal advice?

C: No.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Your Department was in possession of advice that the scheme was unlawful, and yet it continued for two more years.

CAMPBELL: I wasn't aware we had it.

G: You're the Secretary, so it's your responsibility. You never asked for any at any point.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You then relied on Finn Pratt's letter to the Ombudsman. Then when you became DSS Secretary, you didn't ask for any advice they had?

CAMPBELL: Not at that time. It wasn't something I was concerned with.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: You projected, more broadly, that you weren't interested in bad news about a significant Budget measure.

CAMPBELL: You got a lot of bad news in those Departments.

GREGGERY: For which you were paid very well.

C: What was the question?

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You engaged in a full-throated defence of the legality of the scheme, with no legal advice, a letter which didn't concern itself with legality?

CAMPBELL: I was advised by Golightly that it was legal. I accept it would have been preferable to get advice.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You didn't make any note of that? Ask Golightly to provide a brief?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: There were many briefings about many aspects of the scheme, but none on legality...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You became aware in 2019 that DHS were engaged in litigation. You had a meeting in your office, yourself and Ms. Leon, where you discussed Masterton. Did you ask her whether she had advice about the prospects of success?

CAMPBELL: I don't recall (x10-15)

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: It was a significant legal issue, and you can't recall if it was discussed? I take it you can't recall asking Ms. Leon for that advice?

CAMPBELL: I don't recall.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Do you recall telling Ms. Leon the scheme was your idea, and that more savings were on the table if she looked further?

CAMPBELL: No, and I've never said that.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: You can clearly recall you asked for Solicitor-General's advice, and there was a five-week delay, how is it you can't recall asking Ms. Leon for propsects advice?

CAMPBELL: I was so shocked by the S-G's advice, so I couldn't forget it.

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I was horrified by Masterton advice when I received it.

GREGGERY: Horrified? But you don't similarly recall the emotional response about the delay in Masterton?

CAMPBELL: I recall something about the caretaker provisions...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Do you recall the PwC report, you had a good relationship with Terry Weber, socialised with him?

CAMPBELL: A couple of times, yes.

G: Was the authority to approve expenditure your delegation?

C: Can't recall exactly.

G: In any event you agreed to engage

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I identified the need, but delegated to someone who had more detail than me.

GREGGERY: No report was ever provided, can you explain that?

C: No.

G: Any reason why it would be marked for Cabinet?

C: Not unless the Minister wanted to bring it there.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Is it acceptable to you as Secretary that a report was paid for, but none was provided?

CAMPBELL: No.

HOLMES: Did you ever ask after it?

C: I wasn't fixated on the report.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Do you recall the Department engaged in a pilot program?

CAMPBELL: No.

G: Do you recall being dissatisfied by the Ombudsman's report?

C: Thought there were some shortfalls, that we hadn't provided information.

G: One of the points was the pilot program?

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I would have recalled it at the time. I can't recall it now.

[What the fuck? How does that even work]

#RobodebtRC

[Going through info on the pilot program in 2015 from DHS, McNamara's junk edits about behavioural 'science']

GREGGERY: You can see a decision was made not to progress it to you. It holds that averaging would have to be used. Someone decided not to give you this.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: Do you know who was involved in that area?

CAMPBELL: There are 30,000 people in the Department, I don't know who these people were.

[She has used the '30,000 people' line a fair bit today. Must be nice, to be so important.]

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: While the brief wasn't progressed to you, it seems you had information on it. You'd say there was a decision to give the news to you orally given the high non-response rate?

CAMPBELL: I don't recall that occurring.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: DHS were highly invested in avoiding critique in the Ombudsman's report?

CAMPBELL: They were highly invested in providing information to the Ombudsman.

G: Recall meeting with the Ombudsman about the scope of the request?

C: Can't access my diary.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: You said you were invested in understanding critiques by advocates, what was your engagement with @ACOSS?

CAMPBELL: Regular meetings with them. Meeting with Minister on the OCI.

H: And your attitude to them?

C: I listened to them.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: Glyn Fiveash wrote an advice you didn't see. One thing he says in his statement, is you'd regularly start conversations by asking what the legal basis was?

CAMPBELL: Not normally. Maybe when I'd be talking to lawyers, that's why I'm talking to them.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: Did you ever talk to Annette Musolino about the scheme?

CAMPBELL: I remember talking to Golightly about legality. There were a number of iterative conversations...eventually DSS decided legislation not required.

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: Golightly told me DSS thought it was going to happen without engagement with the customer.

HOLMES: Well then they couldn't have read the Executive Minute, could they? This makes no sense.

C: That's why I can't answer the question.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: Do you not think the way you maintained there'd be no change to how income was assessed might make people who thought differently not want to raise it with you?

CAMPBELL: No.

H: Ms. Taylor emailed you and you didn't even read it...

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: Can you not see how that might have that effect?

CAMPBELL: No.

H: Alright.

[🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️]

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: This is an email you sent about an interview between @cassandragoldie and David Speers, you say you 'thought she said at the end she was okay with automation'. Suggests a sort of gleeful seizing on a detail that could be used against ACOSS?

CAMPBELL: No...

#RobodebtRC

[She was actively seeking the transcript of it in a way she wouldn't seek, to choose an example completely at random, inconvenient legal advice.]

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: It was certainly persistently the case that DHS referred to the Ombudsman's report any time a question was raised of the scheme, wasn't it?

CAMPBELL: It was in this case.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: Did you ever meet with Minister Robert while you were DSS Secretary?

CAMPBELL: He was responsible for the NDIS, so we met regularly, yes.

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: I suggest Golightly couldn't have told you DSS thought it was lawful, based on when they provided their advice.

CAMPBELL: That's when it was provided in writing...

#RobodebtRC

GREGGERY: Ms. Miller gave a statement to the Commission that she was informed a vulnerability indicator could expire automatically after 12 months. In those circumstances, this would appear a systemic failure, rather than a simple individual error?

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: I wasn't aware of that, no.

[Because you never investigated...]

HOLMES: Did you know how vulnerability indicators worked?

C: I'm sure I would have at the time.

#RobodebtRC

HOLMES: It's a pretty fundamental systemic issue if they're removed regardless of their state of health...

GREGGERY: Here is the response that was provided by DHS, can you see that, Ms. Campbell?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

G: It relays the explanation is it auto-ended.

#RobodebtRC

CAMPBELL: That's what the document says.

GREGGERY: So do you now agree it was a systemic failure?

C: [Doesn't really agree, doesn't know how it worked back then, seriously just disgusting.]

#RobodebtRC

HOGAN-DORAN (Cth): When you say the diaries weren't provided to you, do you mean that they weren't in the contemporaneous form?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

H-D: But information was provided to you extracted in the form of an Excel spreadsheet.

C: Yes, but not all of it.

#RobodebtRC

Campbell's counsel, Patrick Flynn SC, wants to clarify what she said about passing age pension asset testing legislation through the Senate. Which I unfairly paraphrased as 'stuff'.

FLYNN: Is this Explanatory Memorandum for what you were discussing?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

#RobodebtRC

FLYNN: And this is what you were referring to in terms of legislation that was 'passed quickly'?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

[Hogan-Doran doesn't want it entered as an exhibit. Holmes is back to her idea that arguing about Parliamentary Privilege is 'SO much fun'. We'll see.]

#RobodebtRC

I'm almost out of battery over here, and I need the loo, let's go home everyone.

Kathryn Campbell is, finally, excused.

She has submarines to think about.

Staring straight down as she leaves, which is a good decision.

The Royal Commission is adjourned for today.

#RobodebtRC

#RobodebtRC

https://twitter.com/robodebtRC/status/1632974226339790851?t=63OcHP2JyxEK0F9wrKDPZQ&s=19