70 year-old Australian children's picture books author treated like dirt by Trump Regime

Mem Fox is a retired Associate Professor of Literacy Studies (Flinders University, South Australia) and a well-known picture book author.

On 25 February 2017 ABC News reported on her experience of the Trump Regime:

Australian author Mem Fox has received a written apology from the United States after what she said was a traumatic detention by immigration officials at Los Angeles Airport.

Fox, who was questioned by Customs and Border Protection officers for two hours earlier this month as she was on her way to Milwaukee to address a conference, said she collapsed and sobbed at her hotel after she was released.

She said the border agents appeared to have been given "turbocharged power" by an executive order signed by President Donald Trump to "humiliate and insult" a room full of people they detained to check visas.

That executive order was eventually halted by Federal Courts and it was expected a new order would be signed this week, designed to avoid the confusion caused by the original.

"I have never in my life been spoken to with such insolence, treated with such disdain, with so many insults and with so much gratuitous impoliteness," Fox said.

"The entire interview took place with me standing, with my back to a room full of people in total public hearing and view — it was disgraceful.

"I felt like I had been physically assaulted which is why, when I got to my hotel room, I completely collapsed and sobbed like a baby, and I'm 70 years old."

Fox, whose books include classics such as Possum Magic and Ten Little Fingers and Ten Little Toes, said she was questioned about her visa status, even though she had travelled to the United States 116 times previously without incident.

"My heart was pounding so hard as I was waiting to be interviewed, because I was observing what was happening to everybody else in the room," she said.

"They accused me of coming in on the wrong visa and they were totally wrong about that.

"The person who interviewed me was heavy with weaponry, was totally dressed in black with the word 'police' in hand-sized letters across his chest."

The author lodged a complaint with the Australian embassy in Washington, and later one with the United States embassy in Canberra to which she received an emailed letter of apology.

"I said any decent American would have been shocked to the core by what had happened, it was so dreadful," Fox said.

"And I had an absolutely charming letter from them within hours of my email hitting their desk."

The author said she was unlikely to visit the United States again despite the friendliness of ordinary Americans.

Clarence Valley Council: a local government history lesson......

In August 2011 it was announced that Clarence Valley Council had a new general manager, Scott Greensill.

Mr. Greensill came to the Clarence Valley trailing considerable baggage from his previous position as Singleton Council’s general manager.

It has been an open secret ever since that Clarence Valley Council staff have become disturbed by an uncomfortable ‘atmosphere’ developing in the workplace - as well as residents, ratepayers and a numbers of councillors being unhappy with a perceived decrease in local government administrative transparency and those project cost blowouts amounting to millions of dollars.

From 2011 through to the 2016 local government election the general manager had the unwavering support of then Clarence Valley mayor, Richie Williamson.

So much so that an effort was made to entrench the general manager’s position ahead of the 2016 local government election.

The Daily Examiner, 23 February 2015:

The publication of the minutes of the meeting on Friday revealed council has offered Mr Greensill a new five-year contract incorporating his existing job description and remuneration package.

But the vote to approve the new contract did not include Crs Baker and Toms, who, according to the minutes, left the chamber before it was concluded.

The remaining seven councillors voted unanimously to renew the general manager's contract to run from February 17, 2015 to February 16, 2020.

It took the intervention of a member of the public, Geoff Helisma, to encourage councillors to debate whether the matter should be public or heard in private.

Mr Helisma said he was worried renewing the general manager's contract at this point meant the next group of councillors elected in September next year would have a general manager they had no say in selecting.

He pointed out this had been a consideration when the State Government's review of local government ruled councils could not appoint a general manager less than six months out from an election.

This was a North Coast Voices post published on Monday 23 February 2015:

How to constrain an incoming council in one easy lesson

It took Council in the Chamber less than twenty-six minutes to decide to renew the general manager's $240,000 contract, approve additional financial provisions and extend his employment to 17 February 2020 - thereby binding the next duly elected Clarence Valley Council to a particular general manager for all but the last seven months of its four-year term in office.

So rushed was this process that it appears that the new employment contract was signed on the night.

Five excerpts from Clarence Valley Council Ordinary Monthly Meeting Minutes of 17 February 2015:

1. COUNCIL RESOLUTION – 07.003/15

(Crs Williamson/McKenna) 

That

Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole and the press and public be excluded to allow consideration of one confidential report 10.001/15: In accordance with Section 10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993, it is recommended that as the matter contains personnel matters concerning a particular individual (other than Councillors) that the matter be dealt with in closed session.

Voting recorded as follows

For:

Councillors Williamson, McKenna, Hughes, Lysaught, Simmons, Howe, Kingsley

Against:

Councillors Baker, Toms

2. The microphones were turned off, live streaming ceased and the press and public were excluded from the Chamber.

Council moved into the Committee of the Whole at 9.21 pm to consider Item 10.001/15.....

The Ordinary Council meeting resumed at 9.47 pm.

3. COUNCIL RESOLUTION – 10.001/15

(Cr Williamson)

(a) That Council enter into a Deed of Variation with Mr Scott Greensill to vary the current contract of employment between Council and Mr Scott Greensill by deleting the words “or at the most 18 months” from Clause 5.3 and that the Common Seal of the Council be affixed to the Deed.

(b) That subject to the Deed referred to in Paragraph (a) above being executed by Council and Mr Scott Greensill, Council offers Mr Scott Greensill a new five year contract of employment, incorporating the existing job description, and inclusive of a total remuneration package equal to his current total remuneration package, to commence on 17 February 2015 (or as soon as the documentation is executed) and terminating on 16 February 2020 (or 5 years after commencement).

(c) That the contract of employment be in accordance with the standard contract required by the NSW Office of Local Government.

(d) That the Mayor be authorised to negotiate the employment contract terms applicable to provision of a Council motor vehicle to Mr Greensill to be consistent with Council’s standard policy arrangements for provision of motor vehicles to other staff.

(e) That Schedule A under Clause 4.5 of the contract of employment extend the application of the following Council Policies to the General Manager:

• Gifts and Benefits

• Reimbursement of Legal Costs to Staff

• Business Credit Card Use

• Motor Vehicle Management Protocol

• Sick Leave/Carer’s Leave

• Staff Travelling Expenses 

(f) That the contract of employment be executed by affixing the Common Seal of the Council.

Voting recorded as follows

For:

Councillors Williamson, Hughes, Howe, Simmons, McKenna, Lysaught, Kingsley

Against:

Nil

Noting that Crs Baker and Toms were absent from the Chamber and did not vote 

4. COUNCIL RESOLUTION – 07.004/15

(Crs Hughes/Simmons)

That

Council move out of the Committee of the Whole and the Ordinary Meeting resume.

Voting recorded as follows

For:

Councillors Williamson, Howe, Hughes, Simmons, McKenna, Lysaught, Kingsley

Against:

Nil

Noting that Crs Baker and Toms were absent from the Chamber and did not vote.

5. Cr Baker, Cr Toms, Scott Greensill, Troy Anderson, Des Schroder, Ashley Lindsay and Kristian Enevoldson returned to the Council meeting at 9.53pm...... 

There being no further business the meeting closed at 9.53 pm. 

Guidelines for the general manager performance management framework under section 23A of the Local Government Act 1993 (July 2011) state:

Performance review panels should comprise the mayor, the deputy mayor,

another councillor nominated by council and a councillor nominated by the general manager. The council’s governing body may also consider including an

independent observer on the panel. Panel members should be trained in the

performance management of general managers.

The role of the review panel includes:

* conducting performance reviews

* reporting the findings and recommendations of those reviews to council

* development of the performance agreement.

The governing body of council and the general manager may agree on the

involvement of an external facilitator to assist with the process of performance

appraisal and the development of new performance plans. This person should be selected by the governing body of council or the performance review panel. 

As had been done in previous years, a performance review was undertaken in 2016.
On 19 February the four-man Performance Review Committee for 2015-16 (Crs. Williamson, Howe, Simmons and Lysaught) undertook a review of the General Manager’s performance (facilitated by Mike Colreavy) covering the year of his employment contract from 17 February 2015 to 16 February 2016 and Council-in-the-Chamber endorsed the performance review report 7 votes to 2.

Rather oddly, at the post-2016 local government election extraordinary council meeting of 27 September 2016 when council committee memberships were allocated there was no mention of forming a new Performance Review Committee for 2016-17 .

Presumably that situation was a part-reason for this item placed on the agenda of the 21 February 2017 Clarence Valley Council ordinary monthly meeting by current mayor, Jim Simmons:

An excerpt from Clarence Valley Council Ordinary Monthly Meeting Minutes, 21 February 2017:

MOTION

Simmons/Kingsley

That the Confidential Mayoral Minute (Item 11.001/17) on the General Manager’s Performance Agreement

– Proposed Variation be brought forward and considered as the next item of business. CARRIED.

Mr Scott Greensill declared an interest and left the Chamber at 4.03 pm.

MOTION

Toms/Kingsley

That Council move into Confidential Session to consider Item 11.001/17. CARRIED.

The press and public were excluded from the meeting at 4.04 pm.

MOTION

Toms/Kingsley

That Council move back into open forum at 4.47 pm. CARRIED.

The press and public were invited to return to the Chamber.

MOTION

Williamson/Novak

That Council adopt the motion in Confidential Session as follows:

That

1. Council seek agreement with the General Manager for the General Manager’s performance review to be undertaken under the terms of the guidelines for the appointment and oversight of general managers issued by the Office of Local Government July 2011 noting that the request that, in open Council, one Councillor (other than the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and General Manager’s nominee) will be appointed to the Performance Review Committee as requested by the General Manager and one Councillor will be nominated by the General Manager.

2. If agreement is not reached then the matter be reported to Council.

Voting recorded as follows:

For: Simmons, Baker, Clancy, Ellem, Williamson, Toms, Novak

Against: Kingsley

MOTION

Simmons/Toms

That subject to agreement to Point 1 by the General Manager, a Councillor be appointed to the Performance Review Committee. CARRIED

MOTION

Toms/Clancy

That Councillor Ellem be appointed to the Performance Review Committee. CARRIED.

Mr Scott Greensill returned to the meeting at 4.55 pm.

The result of this council resolution appears to be that the current Performance Review Committee is almost certain to be composed of Crs. Simmons, Kingsley, Ellem and the councillor nominated by the general manager which is likely to be either Williamson or Lysaught.

A committee profile with which Mr. Greensill may not be in wholehearted agreement.

Enquiries from local media have elicited a statement from Clarence Valley Council that the General Manager has since gone on “sick leave” until 13 March 2017.

Unconfirmed rumour on social media suggests that Greensill has in fact resigned.

In recent years it has been rumoured that he was eager to obtain employment outside of the Clarence Valley for 'personal' reasons.

This is a Clarence Valley Council meeting notice in March 2017:

There is no business paper currently available for this extraordinary meeting and for the most part it will be dealt with in confidential session, so residents and ratepayers may have to wait until the local grapevine kicks in to flesh out whatever the meeting minutes reveal.

UPDATE

The 3 March 2017 extraordinary meeting took a whole 8 minutes to move into a closed session which lasted approx. 1 hour & 21 minutes and, then a further 6 minutes to unanimously pass a motion to the effect that the closed session resolution/s concerning the General Manager's employment contract is to remain confidential and close the meeting.

How major electricity suppliers take advantage of rural and regional customers

This is what NSW Dept of Industry, Resources and Energy advises owners of roof top solar power previously covered by pre 31 December 2016 feed-in tariffs:

It is up to individual customers to decide what metering arrangement will best suit their property, system and budget. You may wish to refer to the fact sheet Small Scale Solar PV Generators.

Generally if you do not receive a feed-in tariff, or if your feed-in tariff is lower than the price you pay for electricity, you are likely to be better off with a net meter. Under net metering, electricity from a solar PV system is first used to meet any consumption that takes place at the time of the generation. This means that for each kilowatt hour you consume of your own generation, you save the retail price that would otherwise be paid for that consumption.

Customers are encouraged to contact their distributor or accredited service provider to discuss their metering options before making a final decision.

Endeavour Energy customer contact number 131 003
Ausgrid call centre number 131 535
Essential Energy contact number 13 23 91

The writer of this letter to the editor, published in the Clarence Valley Independent on  22 February 2017, appears to be currently exporting all his solar power to a residential energy supplier for a pitiful return.

This is occurring because the power supplier (which based on stated costing is likely to be Origin/Essential Energy) is refusing to install a net meter function for the solar power system because of alleged deficiencies in mobile coverage.

Mobile cover is required as the digital net meter in question is to be read remotely and, apparently existing NBN satellite or fixed wireless cover in the Braunstone area is not considered satisfactory by the energy company's representative.

I'm sure there are more than a few Northern Rivers residents in the same situation as Mr. Philipse and, I rather suspect that residential energy suppliers are quite content to have it continue that way. As the est. $18 cents per kwh hour net profit earned from a customer's rooftop solar power output by charging top price of 24.2 cents per kwh for that same solar power as residential supply back to that customer, is money for jam for these companies.

Remember the NSW Premier who needed to urgently & immediately retire because he was needed by his family?

On  19 January 2017 then Liberal MP for Manly and NSW Premier Michael Bruce 'Mike' Baird announced that due to serious illness in his extended family he needed to quit politics right now.

Despite a generous parliamentary pension calculated on 9 years & 10 months as a member of parliament, 7 years as a shadow minister, over 4 years as a minister and 2 yrs, 9 months & 7 days as state premier, he immediately started to look for a high powered job in the private sector.

Forty days later it was reported that Baird had been made part of National Australia Bank's senior executive team as head of its corporate and institutional banking division.

Where his parliamentary pension will be topped up by a NAB annual remuneration package which includes cash salary in the vicinity of $1 million (based on executive remuneration in NAB 2016 Annual Financial Report) and benefits such as superannuation and performance rights. 

A cash salary around three times more than he received as NSW premier.

It seems that having decided that he didn't want to fulfil his commitment to his electorate and serve his full term Mike Baird came up with a 'reason' for going that doesn't bear close scrutiny.

One again a Liberal Party politician played New South Wales voters for fools.

UPDATE

According to one South Australian reader on 1 March 2017 Mike Baird admitted to the ABC that his total annual remuneration package was $2 million.

Tony Abbott MP: the man who lied about a carbon tax is preparing to lie to voters once again

The week former chief of staff to Tony Abbott, Peta Credlin, confirmed that he had deliberately lied when characterising the Gillard Government’s price on carbon as a "carbon tax", The Sydney Morning Herald reported this:

Tony Abbott has laid out a five-point plan for the Coalition to have a chance at the "winnable" next election, including cutting back immigration and scrapping the Human Rights Commission.

In a major speech in Sydney at the launch of a new book, Making Australia Right, on Thursday evening, Mr Abbott gave the clearest signal yet he believed the Turnbull government is failing to cut through with voters, and that the contest of ideas - and for the soul of the modern Liberal Party - between the current and former prime minister has a long way to run.

Mr Abbott noted nearly 40 per cent of Australians didn't vote for the Coalition or Labor in the 2016 election: "It's easy to see why".

In a sign a return to the leadership was on his radar, Mr Abbott set out ideas on how to take the fight to Labor and win back Coalition voters thinking of defecting to Pauline Hanson's One Nation.

"In short, why not say to the people of Australia: we'll cut the RET [renewable energy target] to help with your power bills; we'll cut immigration to make housing more affordable; we'll scrap the Human Rights Commission to stop official bullying; we'll stop all new spending to end ripping off our grandkids; and we'll reform the Senate to have government, not gridlock?"

He said the next election was winnable for the Coalition, however, "our challenge is to be worth voting for. It's to win back the people who are giving up on us". [my highlighting]

So let’s look at this jumble of potential three-word slogans being readied for the next Coalition federal election campaign.

RET –renewable energy target

In 2014 the Abbott Government ordered a review of RET. This review found that RET tends to lower wholesale electricity prices and that the RET would have almost no impact on consumer prices over the period 2015–2030.

Despite Abbott's downgrading of RET targets when he was prime minister, in 2017 the Turnbull Coalition Government (of which Abbott is a member) continues its support of these targets.

According to the Dept of Industry, Innovation and Science network costs are the biggest factor driving up the cost of electricity and  a large part of these higher costs has been the need to replace or upgrade ageing power infrastructure, as most electricity networks were built throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

Housing affordability

In December 2016 the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) recorded 11.3 million houses/units/flats purchased by investors for rent or resale by individuals and a further 1.3 million for rent or resale by others. [ABS 5609.0 Housing Finance]

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in June 2015 clearly indicated that purchase of housing stock by investors had increased to almost 23 per cent of all housing stock and, that increased investor activity and strong growth in housing prices were occurring along with an increase in negatively geared investment properties. [RBA, Submission to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics Inquiry into Home Ownership]

The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) put the matter bluntly in Fuel on the fire: negative gearing, capital gains tax & housing affordability - The tax system at both the federal and state level inflates housing costs, undermines affordability, and distorts the operation of housing markets. Tax settings are not the main reason for excessive growth in home prices, but they are an important part of the problem. They inflate demand for existing properties when the supply of new housing is insufficient to meet demand. Ironically, many public policies that are claimed to improve affordability - such as negative gearing arrangements, Capital Gains Tax breaks for investors, and first home owner grants for purchasers – make the problem worse.

Competition between investor-developers recently saw $1.3 million added to the sale price of an older house at a Sydney metropolitan auction.

Although population growth is a factor in competition for housing stock, nowhere in reputable studies or reports can I find mention of immigration levels significantly contributing to this competition.  Which is not surprising, given that natural population increase and increase through migration do not occur uniformly within Australian states & territories and natural increase will outstrip migration in some states and territories in a given year.

Human Rights Commission

On 26 December 1976 the Fraser Coalition Government announced its intention to establish a Human Rights Commission which would provide orderly and systematic procedures for the promotion of human rights and for ensuring that Australian laws were maintained in conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in order that citizens who felt they had been discriminated against under specific Commonwealth laws such as laws relating to discrimination on grounds of race or sex (but excluding laws in the employment area) would be able to have their complaints examined.

The Commission was created in 1981 by an act of the Australian Parliament and later rebirthed as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 1986 by another act of the Australian Parliament.

Whilst ever no Commonwealth statute exists which sets out the core rights of Australian citizenship the federal parliament continues to fail to guarantee protection against its own legislative or regulatory excesses.

The Human Rights Commission is one of the few points at which ordinary citizens without considerable financial means can seek redress of a wrong or harm done to them.

No new spending

I simply refer readers to Tony Abbott’s economic record in the slightly less than two years he spent as Australian prime minister, when on his watch economic growth was slowing and living standards were falling.

Senate reform

This is Section 57 of the Australian Constitution which would have to be amended and is required to be taken to a national referendum before reform can occur:

Disagreement between the Houses

                   If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

                   If after such dissolution the House of Representatives again passes the proposed law, with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.

                   The members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the proposed law as last proposed by the House of Representatives, and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House and not agreed to by the other, and any such amendments which are affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall be taken to have been carried, and if the proposed law, with the amendments, if any, so carried is affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of the Parliament, and shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent.

The last national referendum held in Australia was in 1999 and cost $66,820,894 according to the Australian Electoral Commission for a vote on two questions.

Like 34 of the 44 referendum questions before them these two questions did not carry. In fact the last referendum questions to be carried were in 1977.

Prospect of successful right-wing reform of the Senate? 

The American Resistance has many faces and this is just one of them (4)

United States Federal Election Commission (FEC):

Ellen L. Weintraub took office as a Member of the United States Federal Election Commission (FEC) on December 9, 2002.  After an initial recess appointment, her nomination was confirmed by unanimous consent of the United States Senate on March 18, 2003.  Commissioner Weintraub has twice served as Chair of the Commission, for calendar years 2003 and 2013.  

Prior to her appointment, Ms. Weintraub was Of Counsel to Perkins Coie LLP and a member of its Political Law Group. There, she counseled clients on federal and state campaign finance and election laws, political ethics, nonprofit law, recounts, and lobbying regulation. During the election contest arising out of the 1996 election of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ms. Weintraub served on the legal team that advised the Senate Rules Committee. Her tenure with Perkins Coie represented Ms. Weintraub’s second stint in private practice, having previously practiced as a litigator with the New York law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel.

Before joining Perkins Coie, Ms. Weintraub was Counsel to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the U.S. House of Representatives (the House Ethics Committee). Like the Commission, the Committee on Standards is a bipartisan body, evenly divided between Democratic and Republican members. Ms. Weintraub’s work focused on implementing the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and subsequent changes to the House Code of Official Conduct. She also served as editor in chief of the House Ethics Manual and as a principal contributor to the Senate Ethics Manual. While at the Committee, Ms. Weintraub counseled Members on investigations and often had lead responsibility for the Committee’s public education and compliance initiatives.

Ms. Weintraub received her B.A., cum laude, from Yale College and her J.D. from Harvard Law School. A native New Yorker, she is a member of the New York and District of Columbia bars and the Supreme Court bar.

Commissioner on the U.S. Federal Election Commission, Ellen L. Weintraub, Statement 21 February 2017 by clarencegirl on Scribd

The statement was in response to this document (filed by the right-wing Cause of Action Institute rumoured to be partly funded by the Koch Brothers) which stated in part:

CoA Institute requests that you open an investigation² to determine whether Ellen Weintraub, a Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), violated applicable ethics regulations when she used government property and official time to call on President Trump to provide evidence of his claims of voter fraud in New Hampshire and then continued to promote her statement after it was issued. We also urge you to determine whether it is appropriate for the FEC website to continue to host Commissioner Weintraub’s statement.

DHS & Centrelink now threatening clients who expose unfair or inappropriate implementation of social security policy?

Screenshot via @BernardKeane

Political reporter with @abcnews:

Henry Belot Verified account ‏@Henry_Belot

This Department of Human Services has just issued a pretty clear warning to Centrelink clients who want to public criticise #notmydebt.

6:03 PM - 27 Feb 2017

ABC News, 27 February 2017:

Those who publicly criticise Centrelink's automated debt recovery program could have their personal information released to correct the record, the Department of Human Services (DHS) has warned.

Blogger Andie Fox wrote an opinion piece for Fairfax Media earlier this month claiming Centrelink "terrorised" her while chasing her for a debt she believed she did not owe.

On the weekend, Fairfax published an article from the Government's perspective, raising the prospect of Centrelink being "unfairly castigated".

In the article a spokesman for Centrelink commented on Ms Fox's personal information including her history of claiming the Family Tax Benefit and relationship circumstances.

A DHS spokesman said personal information could be released by the Government to correct public statements of complaints.

"Such disclosures are made for the purposes of the social security law or the family assistance law, they do not need to be formally authorised by the secretary," the spokesman said.

"Unfounded allegations unnecessarily undermine confidence and takes staff effort away from dealing with other claims.

"We will continue to correct the record on such occasions."

Labor's Linda Burney accused DHS of "deeply unethical actions" and the Government of seeking "revenge".

"The disclosure has occurred deliberately to smear a private individual who has spoken out about the error prone robo-debt program and the deeply flawed Centrelink debt recovery process," she said.

"Correcting the record is one thing, attempting to smear and discredit opponents is entirely different and far more troubling."

Ms. Fox's response can be found at https://bluemilk.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/is-this-what-happens-when-you-criticise-government/.

However, neither Centrelink nor the Turnbull Government can stop criticism being aired during - the rather wordily titled - Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs’ Inquiry into Design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative and mainstream media reporting.

The Canberra Times, 28 February 2017:

People pursued by Centrelink over its controversial "robo-debts" are being denied the protection of Australian consumer law, a Parliamentary inquiry has been told.

The welfare agency is exempt from laws and guidelines covering debt collection by private businesses, "even the much maligned banks", according to the chief executive of Victorian community organisation Family Care, David Tennant.

But Centrelink says that is, and the private sector debt collectors hired to pursue its clients, are compliant with legal requirements.

Mr Tennant, who has a background in consumer law, says much of Centrelink's activities in pursuing its millions of dollars in "robo-debt" would be illegal if done by a non-government player.

The legal immunity enjoyed by Centrelink allows it to "pressure people for payment in ways that are objectively unfair," Mr Tennant says in his submission to the Parliamentary inquiry into the robo-debt crisis……

In his submission to the inquiry, Mr Tennant, a former chairman of the national peak body for financial counsellors, say he is surprised by the "lack of commentary about how Centrelink's conduct stacks up against the normal rules applying to the collection of debts in Australia".

"There are significant problems associated with a government department pursing a course of action that would likely be illegal if adopted by a body other than government," Mr Tennant wrote.

"It potentially erodes the confidence of those who rely on the benefit system to treat them fairly, or to recognise them as having the same rights as all citizens.

Although I suspect that one of the reasons behind Centrelink supplying personal and perhaps sensitive client information to the media may be in order to produce a chilling effect on submissions made to this particular Senate inquiry.

This inquiry is accepting written submissions until 22 March 2016.

The inquiry reporting date is 10 May 2017.