I have read a lot about an infamous government agency called the CSA. From my understanding it has been indirectly responsible for the suicide of many Australians (mostly fathers). Not just a few but hundreds. Information that has been kept quiet for a very long time. Australian families affected by the death of these individuals should bring a class action lawsuit against the Child Support Agency of Australia for contributing to the hardship, mental anguish and subsequent death of these human beings (and or the death of other family members involved). Should such a lawsuit be successful, then all monies payed out in judgement should be awarded to the the deceases surviving children and/or immediate surviving family and also a fund and foundation established and administered to help mothers and fathers under duress from the CSA to get free legal advice and or representation. It should also be recommended that the CSA be abolished and new simple laws established as to the monetary responsibilities of all parents.

I am sure there are plenty of lawyers and law firms and maybe even a few judges who'd like to set a new precedent.

Praetorian <" I have read a lot about an infamous government agency called the CSA."

Welcome to OLO Praetorian. You have certainly hit the ground running by opening a new thread when you are so new?
Good on you :)

This CSA subject has been brought up many times on OLO before over the years.
I always wondered why a mainly male Parliament would agree to set up the CSA the way it has been set up, if it is meant to be so anti-male?

I read somewhere that it was because of the (few) fathers of times gone by who shied away from paying for their kids needs, after separating from their mothers.

The Government didn't want to be left to pay for these kids when there was only a mother left to provide for them.
Fair enough too.

What Government then will change their minds and go back to 'the good old days' when men didn't have to pay for their kids needs if they didn't want to, after a marriage breakup?
Many men were angry if their partner left them for any reason, and then refused to pay for anything for their kids as a sort of a payback thing.

It is certainly awful when anyone dies prematurely after a marriage breakdown.
It is not the CSA's fault though.
Mental illness and/or simple rage/retribution is at fault.

If we want to decrease the unacceptably high suicide rates of males in this country (mostly country-born, young, single men), we need to look at providing more accessible mental-health facilities in country areas, and to help break down the stigma of mental health problems in Australia so that more men seek help early.

The idea of a class action against the CSA has been floated before. The biggest impediment to such an action is actually gathering evidence, since the stricy privacy rules of the CSA's enabling Acts prohibit such information being shared among potential participants in a class action.

There's also the problem of showing that the CSA acted consistently illegally, since under the Acts, it bears no reponsibility for outcomes for payers. If the CSA takes your last dollar on a Friday that rent is due, that's tough luck, you'll just have to live on the street and beg for food - no one is going to be the slightest bit concerned at the CSA since they are purely a collection agency.

It also has to be borne in mind that the CSA has policy instructions to maximise immediate collections at every point. So even if it would be more sensible to limit the amount they take from you so as to make it possible for you to continue to support yourself and hence pay more in the long run, the CSA don't consider this as a factor in their actions.

In my experience it is also very hartd for victims of the CSA to take action because the CSA have usually stripped them of any reaources that might be used to do so. A lawyer wants a deposit to initiate a stay order application, usually of between $5000 and $10000, depending on the firm. A destitute CSA payer is unable to stump that up. It's a significant part of the strategy to disenpower separated fathers that was the motivation for the CSA's establishment in the first place.

However, don't despair, the CSA is to be abandoned as a failed experiment over the next few years and its functions will be absorbed into Centrelink. While that agency doesn't have a glowing track record, it's far, far better than its feral cousin.

A good start might be in the series of increasingly critical reports from the Ombudsman.

Occasional criticisms (from the ombudsman) of ten and more years ago should have been received by the agency as dire. Specific and far-reaching criticisms of systematic failure in the agency since 2007 should have been grounds for immediate review of fitness of senior staff, and regarded as calamitous. The sacking of a large number of staff for privacy breaches should not have stopped at lower echelons but resulted in the demotion of senior staff pending review of their complicity in such criminal activity.

Class action on the woeful record of CSA in privacy may be possible.

Overall, I believe children would have been better served if the agency had never existed. I believe our society would be better off the senior managers that encouraged a palpable atmosphere of bias within the agency had never been employed and their salaries instead devoted to directly supporting children.

Rusty

A class action based on what allegation?

We have one poster complaining about the strictness of the Privacy Act in obtaining a fair hearing and others complaining about a lack of privacy.

Rock and hard place comes to mind.

My understanding is it's the Tax Office that garnishes wages of the non-custodial parent in paying child support. Doesn't the CSA just chase up those who are not paying or those suspected of not declaring income?

If there is some disadvantage in the policy in terms of hardship to the non-custodial parent then it is a government policy that needs to be targeted not the body that acts on that policy.

I must admit I was surprised to hear those paying child support are assessed on their gross income not their net income (if my understanding is correct) which would indeed prove a hardship for low and middle income workers. Why not a tax break for those paying child support? It would cost governments more in dealing with the fallout from a bad policy than easing the burden in some way and hopefully fostering more happy family relations. At least shared parenting has gone some way in addressing some of these issues.

What gets lost in this debate sometimes is the fact most separating couples work out their arrangements quite reasonably and equitably. It is the media attention on 'when it all goes sour' that gives the false impression that these situations are the norm.

The Lawsuit would be ‘Wrongful death’; a claim from the surviving family members who also themselves represent in particular the children who have suffered due to this irreversible parental loss due to suicide; The death of many ‘clients’ via suicide where the deceased has formerly declared or stated they have been taunted or bullied into a dire financial and mental situation by the CSA , an agency that gave them no space to move or to recover; also a claim of CSA’s disregard for basic ‘duty-of-care’ toward the client.

To start this class action one would require evidence of Culpability. Under Australian law, 7 (seven) ‘victims’ (the minimum) would need to be represented as a whole and the action submitted to the Federal Court. Through the representative, the families of the deceased would provide evidence of the CSA’s culpability that triggered each wrongful death. I would presume there are dozens or hundreds of letters (or personal diaries) floating around out there that could be used to show that the CSA could be culpable for the death of a client. Letters that have been written by the deceased that name the agency and what they have done to put them into their state of mental-decay could be powerful tools to prove culpability, particularly if they were suicide letters.

Documents would need to be placed in chronological order to show a state of mental decline, in addition to letters, phone records from the CSA could be issued with a subpoena duces tecum by a court, in addition if there were any witnesses present during phone calls that could testify that the deceased show signs of mental stress following a phone call from the agency would help establish culpability. As to what degree of culpability would have to be for a court to decide.

I doubt the government would allow this to proceed to trial and call for an out-of-court settlement. If comparable to most wrongful death suits it would be a multi-million dollar settlement that should be distributed evenly among the deceases children.