I CAN ONLY BUT AGREE WITH YOUR MOST RECENT COMMENTS, AND THIS ALSO ON CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS.

Currently the Child Support Agency is collecting monies but as I recently discovered they have no records if the monies received actually was paid out to the custodian parent.
The Child support Agency is dealing with billions of dollars and making a nice profit on interest when delaying the payout to the custodian parent or not paying out the monies at all.

Neither would they know if cheques are for example cashed in by their own staff as I was given the understanding that they do not check if any cheques issued are actually being drawn and by whom if they are.

I still have some cheques, after some years, and they couldn’t even tell me if the monies were drawn or not. Obviously it had not as I still have the cheques. So, how many millions have been collected, driving non-custodian parent up the wall, so to say, and then being kept by the Child Support Agency one should ask.
Today, I received a response from the Commonwealth Ombudsman that he is going to investigate my complaint about the Child Support Agency1
We will see!
.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that all moneys collected by the Commonwealth of Australia must be placed in consolidated Revenue and can only be drawn by way of Appropriation bills. We have however that the federal government has its own unconstitutional scheme operating and by this can use monies without any check and balances.
.
Hence, placing the monies received in Consolidated Revenue, as you suggest, is in fact what should all along have been done, with any monies received as “DEBT TO THE COMMONWEALTH”.
Still, the constitutional question is how can a private debt become a DEBT TO THE COMMONWEALTH one may ask if the monies, after having been received goes to a private person or is held secretly?
.
In my view every child should be entitled to a certain minimum standard of living,
Continued

and if the Federal Government and so the Courts hold that Child-Support is to ensure that children are being provided with this minimum-standard-of-living then what about the children who’s non-custodian-parent does not pays child-support or where the parent is dead, etc?

When one of my adult daughters was still a toddler I took her non-custodian-mother to court for child support. The judge accepted that her (new) husband was not my daughters step-father as the mother remarried while I was still alive. The mothers-lawyers also agreed and submitted that the new husband had no financial obligation toward the child. I agreed that in that position the new-husband had no obligation by merely for being married to the mother. The judge then asked me what I was on about if nevertheless I pursued that his income should be considered. I explained that as the mother was claiming expenses of his union membership, the car purchased for his work, etc, etc, then by virtue of this she had involved her new-husbands work expenses and so should for this also then include his income. The trial judge ruled that on that basis indeed the new-husbands income was to be considered as part of the income.
Still, in the end the trail judge held that they couldn’t afford to pay child support! The judge even allowed the mother to claim as her own the telephone bills incurred in her fathers name (who had died before the hearing).

When a millionaire can get away with it not to have to pay a cent on child-support while wage-earners have their wages garnished it spells trouble! And,-the-effect-upon-the-children-is-not-to-be-overlooked.
Yet, an increase in Child-endowment would resolve this all as then non-custodian parents could still have their own decent kind of living rather then being crucified, so to say, even so they may not even have been at fault of the marriage breakdown.
considering how much money will be saved by avoiding conflicts about child-support, court times, etc we should act sensible and address the issues as a matter of urgency, if anything for the sake of the children involved.

Mr Gerrit
The entire system is to blame for most millionares avoiding taxes, child support and alike. In most cases wealthy people are hard workers, don't plan their working live's around their social events and have to continually put their hand in their pockets due to the fact that they receive no support from the government. Infact, in most cases they pay 2 or 3 times for things such as ambulance levey, medicare and alike, all for the sake of ensuring that the (less fortunate) as they like to be known as can go to a doctor and not have to shell out the 40 bucks that the rich have to pay as the rich don't qualify for handouts. The fact is that the current system means that if you work harder you have the previlage of paying extra to medicare as it is a % of your income but you are not elidgible to use the sytem.
Imagine a system where the more you contributed to the system throughout your working life, by way of taxes paid, the better looked after you would be in your retirement. I myself have been out of work, by choice, for 1 year out of my 35 working years and been on the dole for a total of 3 weeks back in the late 70's after leaving school.
You see most millionares are self employed and from average educational leveles and have had a pretty plain start in life, myself included, and have structures in place to minimise their taxes all because there is little or no incentive to be honnest.
I feel the entire system needs to be placed on a level playing field and all hand outs be shared to all children regarless of their social social status. If achieved the world would be a better place. Reward for effort is my motto, not, gee your a nice guy for working so hard so we don't have to.

My wife very much has an issue with the GST as when AMP dropped down so much that we lost a lot of money we were still slugged on other investments. While John Howard spend so much going after the workers, he did nothing at all to go after the big companies that are robbing retired workers of their life savings. As such let the hard workers bleed to death!
And, my wife questions why on earth she cannot enjoy her retirement where she worked so hard all her life paying huge amount of taxes!
As she makes clear she should be able to enjoy her retirement and not being slugged time and again GST.

I for one have serious doubt s that the special levy (if you are not in a private health funds) is constitutionally valid!

Considering the 1.2 billion of dollars and counting John Howard so far has spend on advertisement it shows he could not care less what is really in the best interest for the people, rather that he is concerned what he can get out of it, and his party.

I understand that some years ago Peter Costello gambled about 5 billion dollars away on the future funds. That may underline how ignorant they are with our money!

In my view if we return to the way the Constitution was intended, and get rid of the GST, the university fees, etc, then as a society we would do a lot better.
Just consider. A student (for becoming a doctor) has to pay huge university fees and when finally getting a job needs to charge fees to repay this. Hence abolishing university fees in the long run will be a lot cheaper. by this it would not matter if you are of a riuch family or a poor family as if you show to have a brain then those will qualify for university.
And, we all end up paying less for medical and other fees!

Celiva said

Rehctub, RObert,
children who need to accept changes (e.g. sea or school change, dropping a hobby) when part of a stable, loving family, I imagine would cope better with those changes than children who are caught between fighting parents and have to deal with extra stress and need to adjust to constantly move back and fro between two parents’ homes as well. It’s a lot to cope with for young children.

Pale replies
Quite rightly so Celivia. Of course that makes better sense.
MR Gerritt- Interesting.
I dont think Government should pay for our own children.
For pity sake if people cant supply three meals a day for their own children they shouldnt have them.
You cant bring children up expecting welfare and hand outs.
It destroys them. Look at the aboriginal people.We certainly didnt help them giving hand outs.

Really each situation is very different.
If a parent has to travel to visit, So be it. Rather the parent be a bit put out than our little kids who deserve a wing free visit.

Not everybody can stay nailed to the one spot in life simply because there x hasnt moved on.
99% of people love their kids. For the ones who dont want to travel without a moan then dont.
People end up living in different states and sometimes other countries.
Thats just life and we have planes and access so Mum if Dad has them or Dad if Mum has them can see each other as often as agreed. Telephones are able to be used daily.

We should never complain about travelling to see our children if the other party has them pretty much full time.

After all second marraiges normally involve several other parties and often other children and other parents so somebody is sure to be going to have to travel.
There is a increasing trend in `some males` to prefer their wife or x wife works while they seek custody, centerlink.
Only a few thank goodness

Mr Gerrit
As for your issue with AMP I must remind you that most shares were issued in good faith by the company simply for just belonging to the organisation. When floated they reached $40+ (allbeit for a very short period) and stabled around the $24 mark before crashing. I do not know your personal situation but the majority of investers had ample oppotunity to cash in FREE SHRARES and make a killing but they oppted for the alternative greedy option and lost.
With regards to GST.
As a small business owner myself I feel they got it wrong by giving us a rebate on GST while slugging the consumer. All GST that I pay is credited while all GST paid on day to day living expenses by individuals is exuabed. Why? I have no idea other than to suggest that the country is run by under acheivers who are not capable of earning the big bucks in the corporate world. This is eveident when Mr Packed paid his accountant $2 million per year while Mr Costello gets a pitence of this.
With regards to the people for live export, as a butcher, (my call sign is butcher spelt backwards) we have the poor struggling farmers to blame for live export and high prices. They get assistance when it rains, assistance when it doesn't rain and they shaft us when the overseas market pays better than the domestic market. Another topic alltogether. Rehctub