Thread by @DarrenODonovan

I held my twitter break waiting for the OAIC's explanation. Day I leave? Get this:
Australian Information Commissioner was 'not minded' to appear at #RobodebtRC as it "might prejudice the perceived independence of her office [and its functioning]" robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/e…

This from the office who:
did an 'assessment' of PAYG data matching, which failed to evaluate the lawfulness or fairness averaging beyond a gentle 'risk'
Failed to press for S-G legals on media disclosures.
Being accountable would have helped not hurt the office. #RobodebtRC

People saw the flak the ATO took on privacy issues. Everything that was said to them can be said to OAIC. A regulator that got an appropriation to assess the system.
OAIC is afraid of adverse perceptions? They're already here. #RobodebtRC See 3.19-3.29 oaic.gov.au/privacy/privac…

These aren't historical issues. OAIC was incompetent in applying APPs 10/13. Under statute averaged data was not accurate, wasn't even relevant to debt calculation. OAIC acted as if statute doesn't matter to it, spouting timid generalities from its own guidelines #RobodebtRC

Next: DHS' "correcting the record" releases under section 202 not section 208. OAIC has SC legals saying you can't use 202. Pilgrim was right at the point of releasing a decision that effectively said:, you are ok for a privacy breach but there's an admin law issue #RobodebtRC

After learning Pilgrim is departing on Thursday, DHS-DSS fire up over the draft decision, and smash into OAIC. Allege a breach of the legal services direction. Spruik qualified&dated advice from 2005.
s202 had been heavily amended since that advice. OAIC caves #RobodebtRC

So.
What did OAIC supply to #RobodebtRC?

Here is their written response.

It put me in a *bad* mood this morning.
Not a single comment about its investigations or assessments of DHS and their patently substandard quality. Why? [2.3]
robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/e…

So #RobodebtRC ask them about the investigation into the media doxxing.
Why, for instance, OAIC didn't insist on S-G advice when it&DHS had conflicting legal advices?

We. Get. This.
The phrase in s202 'for the purposes of X law' is common, OAIC needs to be clear on media leaks

The section 29 of AIC Act argument is ... it does not survive a reading of the broad privacy functions in the Privacy Act in my view