OK straight away now you all know I am a father...

It would be poor form to air one's dirty linen too much on the issue, but without said dirty linen it lacks context. Still, I'll try.
The child support agency is a branch of the tax department, and is only concerned with how much money they can get out of separated fathers. Custody and access have to be chased up through the family court, after several experiences I notice it is almost exclusively run by and for women.

The child support agency thrives on animosity, answers to nobody, keeps a lot of men out of the workforce, deprives children of resources, and interferes with people at a low point in their life.

I should point out, the child support agency does not give the money to the mother or children. I am told that centrelink force the mothers to give the details to csa before getting the pension, but this never happened to me when the kids lived with me.

There has to be a better way, maybe inquisitive rather than adversarial. Perhaps it could be all sorted out at the one place and time. Maybe the mechanism needs to be more flexible for different circumstances. I would be interested to hear if there are any ideas how to make it a little bit fairer on fathers and children?

As anybody who has read my posts would know, I'm 100% with you on this. My proposal is for a levy to be introduced to cover the approximately $2.6 billion that the CSA claims is the amount it transfers between parents each year. Of course, 75% of that is done via "private collect" so the CSA doesn't actually have any role at all, yet the Agency continues to expand, increasing over 30% in total staffing over the past few years.

Only $5 per week per taxpayer would replace the whole lot and save the $500 million or so that the Agency costs to run. Let a competent organisation like the ATO run it rather then the "jobs for the girls" recipients in charge of the CSA.

The Centrelink nexus is also a major part of the problem, since it fosters dispute and disharmony between parents at a time when emotions are already high and causes on-going problems that are often not well understood by either parent when they sign up for the scheme

The two above posts are clearly from males who desire to have no financial responsibility for the children they have had a 50% hand in bringing into this world. They are your offspring and you have a legal and moral obligation to them to help with the cost of their upbringing. If you do not want this responsibility then you should have abstained from the act that lead to their being on this earth in the first place.

The CSA came about as a result of legislation that passed through parliament of representatives elected by the adults of this country (that means you too, by the way). Interestingly the MAJORITY of those elected representatives are MALE. If you want change then you need to take the idea up with the current representatives.

The idea that a levy should be imposed on every tax payer in this country to pay for YOUR legal and moral obligations to financially provide for the offspring that you helped to create should be strenuously opposed. These are YOUR children, not the children of every taxpayer.

Additionally you should stop stating that the CSA is only in existence to get money from fathers. This is not the case. The CSA exists to ensure that NON-CUSTODIAL parents pay their legally obligated amount of money to the CUSTODIAL parent. There are plenty of MOTHERS who are also the NON-CUSTODIAL parent. Therefore you need to ensure that your comments are GENDER neutral.

Also your comments fail to provide the information that many CUSTODIAL parents NEVER see any money from the NON-CUSTODIAL parent as the NON-CUSTODIAL parent takes all and every opportunity to dodge their obligations to their children. I am one such parent.

Tired

Tired:"The two above posts are clearly from males who desire to have no financial responsibility for the children they have had a 50% hand in bringing into this world. "

As anyone who has read my posts would know, my children enjoy equally-shared time with both parents and are free to come and go from both houses as they please within the constraints of organisation. They do that in spite of the CSA, not because of it.

Elimination of the CSA would be good for all concerned, except perhaps the few nasty women who seek to use it to punish their exes and the misandric employees who infest the Agency.

Hahaha thats clear is it? An ill-informed sexist assumption if ever there was one!
Feel free to attack the idea, not the person.

Must I be gender neutral, when pointing out the only males involved in any way at all, were myself and my ex's lawyers (to show its all fair and balanced). How would I be gender neutral in pointing out my experiences as a custodial parent have been greatly different from the mothers'? Yes it would be the politically correct thing to be neutral, but much as you would like it to be the case this hasnt been my experience.

I find it quite offensive that such a serious issue should be trivialised as a few cranky blokes that dont want to meet their obligations. For the record, I have 2 ex's. One deals with me in a polite and reasonable (finally...) way, the other took the kids to NZ and joined some kind of cult. She never told me for about a year where they lived, and GAVE HER HOUSE to the cult.

My main issue is that because I am being persecuted by the CSA for one ex, without resorting to crime I have no way of supporting the other ex.
The ex that deals with me rationally and sensibly hasnt involved the CSA, and she knows if I have money I would give her some without her even needing to ask.
As an Australian, born and bred here, I am greatly offended that our weak government will do the dirty work of NZ. Once again, there is no concern for meaningful contact with the children, and it lacks gender neutrality as it wouldnt be acceptable if the father behaved like that...

Another male but one who is the prime carer. I'm strongly of the view that CSA does far more harm than any good it does. It perpetuates conflict between parents who already have a difficult enough time dealing with the job of parenting when apart.

I makes one parent responsible for decisions made by the other which they often have no say in.

It does not make parents equally responsible, when I was doing shared care I was still required to pay a substantial amount of money to my ex to support her choices which had little to do with the real responsibilities of child care.

It is in my view sexist in it's practical dealings with parents regardless of what the brochures might say.

Time to break the forced financial ties between seperated and divorced parents to get that source of conflict out of the way.

An alternative would be to make parents who can't sort it out for themselves contribute (at a fixed rate) to a pool and be reimbursed from that pool for costs associated with care when their children were in their care. That could end up being another costly government department but for those who value making fathers pay more than they value childrens welfare it does that without many of the drawbacks of the existing system.

R0bert

CSA doesn't really affect me, but I wouldn't be fussed about paying child support via my taxes.

Not sure how this system would work anti/bogan? Do you mean no CSA, but if a father or mother does a runner, or won't pay, means tested welfare goes to the custodial parent who has to prove how many days custody?

How do you prove how many days your kids are there? What if one parent says 7 and so does the other?

It seems to me the money saved in administrative costs would be lost again by the people making their own arrangements deciding they don't want to be a mug and putting their hands out.

How do you stop the couples who make their own arrangements from switching to the free money. Why would they be mugs and look after their children while others get a free government handout.

Another idea is de-facto couples like myself could pretend to split up so as to get the taxpayer funded CSA. What's to stop that happening?

This is just one part of a much deeper malaise.
Why don't all you whingers do the hard yards like the intact families who pay all the taxes to support broken families.
What a joke.
Families who work hard to stay together have to shoulder the financial burden of those who don't.
A big part of the problem is the welfare state.
It's too easy to split up, knowing everybody else in society will pick up the tab for the problems you've created yourselves.
Men can move from woman to woman, and women can move from man to man, creating more and more "dependents".
Except that they are the dependents!
Reliant on support from the rest of society.
And not sufficient support in order to survive,
but sufficient support in order to pay for cars, DVD's, McDonald's, mobile phones, etc.
Now let us wait for the shouts of the right to freedom and independence to make their own choices from those who demand support from (ie are dependent upon) the rest of society.

From the very first post this topic was "genderised". The inaccurate assumption was that the CSA is interested only in getting money from fathers.

The truth is the CSA is interested in getting money from non-custodial "parents" - - - male and female.

Logical and reasoned debate is impossible with people who "genderise" such issues. They are often bitter, hurt and mixed up - - -and clear thinking logic goes out the door, as evidenced by several posts here. Usually it's just best to leave such people to their own devices, and no amount of posting and reasoning will ever change or help them. It's a sad reality of life.

benq, are you in a position to judge if CSA show's gender bias in their dealings with parents?

My own experience as a father having done both shared care and primary care leaves me with the strong impression that gender bias is a significant factor in the way staff treat their work.

R0bert

Bitterness and hurt doesn't allow for clear, reasoned thinking.

The enemy is not women, the enemy is not men, the enemy is not the CSA, the enemy is not the government, the enemy is not legislation, the enemy is not etc etc etc etc etc.

There is NO enemy.

Being combative usually results in hurt, disappointment, disillusionment and often life long grudges. It's no way to live a happy and productive life.

It's peoples' "OWN" choice when they choose not to move on, and to play a blame game.

benq the CSA (and the beliefs behind it) are a big factor in hindering people from moving on. You appear to be making the assertion that the comments so far are just about bitterness and an unwillingness to move on. Is that the case?

If so do you oppose the right's of people to try an change a system or organisation when they find it unfair and damaging? This is not just an historical harm is an ongoing harm which continues to hurt real people and perpetuate conflict between people who should be given every opportunity to sever as many ties as possible.

The experience of those dad's I've known who have been on both sides of the fence is that CSA is not even handed in it's dealings. I've come across women who were dissatisfied with CSA's efforts in pursuing money (I suspect that CSA focus on the easy cases) but few who have expressed a strong belief that they were actively discriminated against by CSA on the basis of gender.

Some men protesting CSA may be unreasonably bitter, some may be trying to avoid legitimate responsibilities but many are decent men who have legitimate reason to call for change. To continue to try and stigmatize all in the way you appear to be doing is grossly unfair.

R0bert

to the OP, I became Oz expert [apart from Di Bryant who became CFM and then CJ] on all things CSA and the greatest ever thorn in their side in the FCA and FMS.

The tale is woeful and lengthy hence I devote a long chapter to it in my book http://csacalc.com/book/

HINT - the discussions at this forum above are EXACTLY what this horrific CSA wants to keep it afloat, so all you are doing is feeding the kitty.

but as a coincidence your idea to disband it is simply the logical solution and no need to set up anything else as the FLAct simply goes back to Child Maintenance [as for my own case pre 1989] and everyone is better off.

ask yourself, if a CSA then why not a Spouse Support Agency or a Property Agency. The answer is there was never any need for a CSA as Child Maintenance worked just fine as seen in the leading case of Mee & Fergusen [1986]

It's all in my book so no need to reinvent the wheel

Naturally, anybody has the right to lawfully change or influence any organisation they choose, if they believe that the organisation is unfair.

It should be remembered that because someone has the honest **belief** that an orgainsation is unfair (whether or not it's based on their own personal experience), it does not mean that the organisation **is** unfair. People coming from experiences of bitterness and hurt resulting from decisions against them are probably least able of all people to provide accurate, unbiased and detached views regarding whether **true** bias exists against **only** men.

So yes, go ahead and try to influence and change things, that is the right of all people. But the act of trying to change things doesn't mean certain accusations are accurate, and it doesn't mean they are inaccurate.

Remember, because a verdict goes against a man, does not mean there is bias against men. Just as when a verdict goes against a woman, does not mean there is bias against women. There may very well be bias, and there may very well not be bias.

The man and woman who have had decisions against them, resulting in unbearable hurt and pain for them, are **the least** likely people to have a balanced, informed, accurate overall view. Their area of expertise is with their own case, and they were the bitter losers. But still, they have the human right to express their **opinions** on any public forum, even if those opinions are not accurate, or accurate: And even if those **opinions** are written as if they are fact - - - people have the absolute right to do that.

if they believe that the organisation is **unfair**

--

wow what a coincidence here - yo all listen up

the simple facts say that the CSA acts illegally and the main avenue is the dreaded COAT [Part 6A of CSAAct].

The issue is that the CSR is REQUIRED to consider if any departure from assessment is JUST & EQUITABLE, same as courts used to do before Howard zapped the courts [see leading case Gyselman].

To overcome the law CSA invented your very term of "fair" and made up their own "law" in The Guide.

as Effie would say, How Embarassment [and such illegality costs the lives of 3 good fathers every day of the year]

DD, you've just written that the CSA causes the deaths of 1095 fathers per year.

Prove it. **Real** proof, not opinion. Make sure you link every death directly to the CSA.

It also seems you know that all of these 1095 dead fathers are "good" (your term).

Prove it. **Real** proof, not opinion.

Yes depression is a major result of such things...

Some fathers might run off with the secretary and have a swag of money in offshore accounts, and not really give a hoot either way as long as they have all the money.

Some fathers might still desperately love their partner and children want to stay, but she's moved on and wants him out.

Some mothers run off with a blokes former best mate, and hound him relentlessly for money to waste on the new fellow.

Some mothers do a wonderful job, only to be thrown out like last weeks' leftovers.

Two reasonable and mature people separate amicably and dont need any outside help with their arrangements.

Thats just off the top of my head, every situation is different and has unique requirements. Just those few hypotheticals, I cant see one rule being fair for all. At a minimum, calculations should be on the NET income, and a sliding scale so if you earn more you pay a lower percentage... an incentive to work rather than a centrelink haven.

Houellebecq:"Do you mean no CSA, but if a father or mother does a runner, or won't pay, means tested welfare goes to the custodial parent who has to prove how many days custody?"

The stated reason for CS is so that children are not forced to suffer due to a lack of financial resources available. We already provide a massive amount of taxpayer funding to women toward this end.

There are several public sector organisations who exist largely to service the "single mother" sector, including Centrelink, FAO, CSA, Women's Legal Aid as well as the various charities and the govt-funded women's groups that have sprung up like weeds and cost a huge amount.

Centrelink, FAO, etc seem to manage ok working out who's up who and who's paying. The only thing that would change is the CSA pursuing a father "to the grave" to quote a former Minister responsible for CSA, Joe Hockey.

Houellebecq:"It seems to me the money saved in administrative costs would be lost again by the people making their own arrangements deciding they don't want to be a mug and putting their hands out"

The $2.6 billion figure was for ALL CS transferred between parents. It includes both private and CSA collect arrangements. My sense is that many high income fathers, who already pay a great deal more than the $260 PA per taxpayer I propose, would continue to do so, and rightly so. The $260 per annum is hardly going to be a crippling burden, so he can easily pay additional funds, although he may not have to pay as much if she's getting a decent sum from the Gov in the first place, removing an incentive for the ex to cause dramas and giving him a chance to rebuild free of harassment. To put it in perspective, the Govt deems that a Dad on the dole is capable of paying $10 a week in CS and automatically deducts it. Is that really helping the kids, or just punishing him? Would $5 a week be such a terrible burden on those in work?

[cont]

benq the comments you make in post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3680#88811 have truth to them but are also one sided. Those who benefit from biased decisions or have who make them are also severely disadvantaged when it comes to unbiased opinions. Most of us on our thread have stated our own stake in this, fathers who have had to deal with the system as "clients".

Do you have a personal stake in the discussion, some factor which could be considered to limit your own ability to form an unbiased opinion about CSA? The tone of your responses looks a lot like you may have a stake in this.

By the logic you are applying to this we would pretty much dismiss the testimony and views of those who considered that they had been abused or discriminated against from any debate on any topic.

Taken to the extreme rape victims should not testify because they can't form an unbiased opinion about the incident. In comparable situations women who believed that they had suffered systematic discrimination in a workplace should have their testimony and views dismissed because they are bitter and angry that things did not go their way. A claim of discrimination does not make it true, a pattern of such claims does give reason for concern.

R0bert

Those of you who cry out for help against the CSA on this forum, should look to the proposal put forward by the United Christian Constitutional Law Group. It will soon have a website up and running where people who have been abused by the failures of successive legislatures both State and Federal can register their disapproval, and do something practical about getting rid of these Quango’s.

The principles the CSA work on are anti-Christian, and contrary to the law of this land, victimize fathers, and hardly help mothers at all. The intrusive and arbitrary imposition of a tax on fatherhood, under dodgy authority, without any concern for the justice of each individual case must stop. It is an acquisition of property by the CSA on unjust terms. They first acquire it, and then pass on a percentage less administration costs, to the mothers involved. This is because the politicians in Canberra are a lazy, incompetent bunch, whose limited education, has precluded them from knowing that the word may, in s 126 Constitution, really means must, and the Commonwealth must have a real representative of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second in every community, to represent the law of the land.

This person should be the Local Magistrate. He should be a Governor General’s plenipotentiary at grass roots community level, able to put the fear of God, into every public servant who willfully executes illegal and unconstitutional laws. S 2 of the Judiciary Act 1903 gives these individuals the power to declare any application to them to be an application for a new trial, and an application to draw into question the right of the Parliament of the Commonwealth to pass unconstitutional laws, like CSA. If you go to the www.community-law.info website, you will see that the United Christian Constitutional Law Group is proposing a class action against the Commonwealth, and maybe you should join them in that. Do something practical to ensure the laws of Australia are not discriminatory. They have no idea how many of you are out there. Get practical. Do this for your kids sake

benz, I am simply using govt terms in reverse. As someone pointed out Howard/Hockey resorted to the umurikan expression daeadbeat dads and added they would chase them to the grave. There were no "good" fathers, only deadbeats, they ALL got the label.

and as someone else pointed out they are quoting from personal experience, well I am talking from experience with some 1,000 clients, even wins in the Full Court of the FCA, so you might say I quote with authority, and it was because of those victories Howard acted contrary to Constitution [see Kirby J re Brandy] and closed down the "right to one's day in court" thus allowing CSA to do as they please.

we were all hoping Kev 07 might go back to ALP ways and have another proper JOINT enquiry as per the JSC of 1994, but seems he hasn't. Meanwhile I retired from CSA matters and wrote the book

and all fathers are good fathers to their kids mate, and in Howard/Parkinson speak the CSA is "for the Benefit of the Children"

The people who would be most helped by my proposal would be those on low to average incomes, for whom CS is often both a crippling burden on the payer and not enough to be especially useful to the payee. When combined with the costs and emotional drain of going to Court against an ex who is being supported by the State to do so it is a double whammy that some simply never get over. 40% of those from whom CSA "collects" are benefit recipients, many of whom were working men before their divorce who have either made a decision that working is now not worth it, or who have been so damaged that work has become impossible.

The details of administration should be reasonably straight-forward, it seems to me. All children receive a portion of the pool, perhaps based on age so as to reflect costs and it's up to their parents to work out the extras, just as 75% do now. Overall it would no doubt lead to more being transferred than is now the case, while also reducing administrative overhead. Who cares if a few cheap sluts milk it or a few deadsh!ts are better off? I don't have any moral objection to reducing overall costs, nor an ideological adherence to making fathers pay through the nose.

Benq, I have been dealing with the CSa since 1999. Their behaviour as an organisation during that period has been unvaryingly appalling, except for a brief period under the leadership of Matt Miller. From some of the comments that have been directed at me, I have formed the view that the people making them were profoundly biased against fathers. Many others have said the same thing. As R0bert pointed out, this is a pattern and patterns of misbehaviour within government departments need investigating. The Ombudsman has not had many good things to say about the Agency either, yet still we have it with us, growing fatter and less accountable and more top heavy with underachieving ideologues.

Get rid of the lot.

"There has to be a better way..."

There is. All compulsion on *anyone* to pay someone else to bring up their own child should be abolished. There should be no payment without consent.

Men have no more a "responsibility" pay the state or the mother for children they have biologically caused, than a woman has to submit to being forced to satisfy a man's sexual interest that the woman has biologically caused. It is an absurd argument; a denial of ethics; a gross biological determinism.

In an earlier thread these issues were exhaustively thrashed out and the advocates of compulsory child support were not able to come up with a single reason or ethical basis for the supposed "responsibility" on men to submit to being forcibly exploited as a money object, with no rights (all rights men have to have contact with their children in family law are as a matter of benefit to the child, not the father).

It makes me angry to hear people say the problem should be thrown ted onto the taxpayer. Why should people be forced to pay for other people's decisions whether to have or look after children?!

It’s a non-problem. The reason we have the CSA is not because there was a generalised problem with supporting children. It is because the government immorally undertook to pay a pension to people, mostly women, for no other reason than that they had had children without making provision for its support; and surprise surprise, government could not manage the endless demand it had created for free incomes! So they created the anti-social, utterly destructive CSA.

It is unjust because no-one has established that
a) those who want money to look after their own children should not raise the money themselves voluntarily by providing services to those willing to pay for them; or
b) obtain the consent of the father by offering reasonable terms to get his consent.

Yes, justice requires that the CSA *and* the sole parents pension should be abolished
*and replaced with nothing*

"There has to be a better way..."

There is. All compulsion on *anyone* to pay someone else to bring up their own child should be abolished. There should be no payment without consent.

Men have no more a "responsibility" pay the state or the mother for children they have biologically caused, than a woman has to submit to being forced to satisfy a man's sexual interest that the woman has biologically caused. It is an absurd argument; a denial of ethics; a gross biological determinism.

In an earlier thread these issues were exhaustively thrashed out and the advocates of compulsory child support were not able to come up with a single reason or ethical basis for the supposed "responsibility" on men to submit to being forcibly exploited as a money object, with no rights (all rights men have to have contact with their children in family law are as a matter of benefit to the child, not the father).

It makes me angry to hear people say the problem should be thrown onto the taxpayer. Why should people be forced to pay for other people's decisions whether to have or look after children?!

It’s a non-problem. The reason we have the CSA is not because there was a generalised problem with supporting children. It is because the government foolishly undertook to pay a pension to people, mostly women, for no other reason than that they had had a child without providing for its support; and surprise surprise, government could not manage the endless demand it had created for free incomes! So they created the anti-social, utterly destructive CSA.

The CSA is unjust to its core because no-one has established that
a) those who want money to look after their own children should not raise the money themselves voluntarily by providing services to those willing to pay for them; or
b) obtain the consent of the father by offering reasonable terms to get his consent

Yes, justice requires that the CSA *and* the sole parents pension should be abolished
*and replaced with nothing*

Family breakdown and single parenting are effectively incentivised by a generous welfare system.
Why not then incentivise families staying together by offering tax advantages?
How about a 1% reduction in the marginal tax rate for each accumulating year of staying together with children?
This would be a one-off opportunity and forfeited upon separation.

If the rate of child support was reduced, we could be more certain that parents wanted their kids for the right reasons.

Yes, justice requires that the CSA *and* the sole parents pension should be abolished
*and replaced with nothing*

--

yes Peter, the Child Support SCHEME was just that and those on the committee in 1988 [incl Diana Bryant] agreed it was simply to be a trial and FOR THAT REASON the Family Law Act [s 66 A to Z in Part VII] was left fully intact and ready to be ACTIVATED [as child maintenance, which by the way worked fine] at any time CSScheme was DEactivated. There but needs ONE single legislative task ie "repeal CSAAct and CSRCAct" and we return to sanity of 1987. S 66G then swings into action and the country is freed to develop again, without those 400,000 fathers [by CSA OWN figures] whose only option was to be "self unemployed".

And there is no direct link to Social Security via CSActs, as testing applies to ALL payments eg Child Maintenance as well as Spouse Maintenance under Part VIII. So there is total integrity in the overall system, were it not for lawyers and feminists who make up the CSA "work" force and want to go ON printing money for themselves.

And the "sole parents pension" [and all names after that eg Parenting Payment] WAS abolished back in 2006 or so and replaced with "Enhanced Jobsearch" in the Costello "welfare to work" incentive.

As I say the whole long story of the FACTS about the CSScheme are in my book, which is why Howard had his Cash for Comment Freaks at familylawguide.com [or whatever] PIRATE it as an EBook

Peter Hume:"Men have no more a "responsibility" pay the state or the mother for children they have biologically caused, than a woman has to submit to being forced to satisfy a man's sexual interest that the woman has biologically caused"

While I agree with the principle of personal responsibility, the fact remains that children exist because the two adults acted out of their own interests at the time. That is, they are a foreseeable consequence of the adults' actions and they are unable to support themselves.

That is why my proposal is for a scheme that makes every adult (every potential parent) an equal compulsory share in the support cost of those children, with the money raised going directly to the benefit of the children. Perhaps such items as food, clothing, school supplies, etc could be "quarantined" via special-purpose accounts held in the name of the children at various participating outlets.

There is no evidence that children of high-income parents who separate suffer financially, it is all borne by children of low-income parents and it is mostly those kids who will grow up to fill the low-skilled service sector jobs that our society, especially the childless, demand. It is only reasonable that everyone should contribute.

DD, noone is interested in spam. If you have a point to make, make it, don't refer to a book that none of us has an interest in purchasing. I can't find any evidence of you actually helping anyone at all. Surely some of those grateful "clients" you claim would have shouted it to the rooftops?

I recall, in a moment of desperation some years ago ringing your phone as a response to one of your spams on DOTA or somewhere and being told "deposit $200 in such and such an account and I'll give you a ring back" or words to that effect. I didn't bother, mpostly because I didn't have either the $200 to spare or much time for someone who tries to ride on the back of others. I've got the $200 now, but I've still no time for spruikers.

Antiseptic
You still have not shown how the argument would not equally apply to the fact that women biologically cause sexual desire in men, therefore there is a moral justification for forcing women to provide satisfaction of that interest?; or that women ‘acted out of their own interest at the time’ in causing sexual desire in men … so therefore coercion is justified? Sorry, it won’t do.

There is no need for compulsion, and there is no need for social engineering schemes. People, left to themselves, will spontaneously form themselves into little mutual support associations (called families), and forcing some people to pay for others’ choices only makes for more injustice, not less.

The fact that poorer people can’t afford to buy as much stuff as richer people is because they are poorer. The solution is to earn more money, not forced redistribution schemes.

For example, most taxpayers in Australia spend all day working, then after work they go to the supermarket, find parking, go shopping, lug it all out, drive home , put it all away, cook the dinner and then wash up, *and look after their own children at their own expense*. They are taxed about 40 percent, much of which goes to pay for a class of people who, *because* they take no responsibility for their own income, have the privilege not to work, and who even get subsidised day-care (what for? I thought the reason we pay the pension is so they can look after their own children?!). It’s crazy.

If the pension were abolished, these people could, should and would, make money by providing services to the people whose taxes should be reduced. They could do the shopping, the cooking, the cleaning – even warm their beds. What’s wrong with that? I mean, we’re not being "moralistic", right?

Those who want what they can’t afford – including to raise their own children - either have to earn the money for it like everyone else, get consent, or go without. If they *really* can’t afford it, the ordinary law of child protection against neglect applies.

About 40 percent tax means you must be on good coin, or have been out of the workforce for a few years, or have a massive Hecs debt like me... But the child support agency wanted 58% of my NET income. Hecs wanted 8% of my gross (on good coin), income tax was about 30%. All in all, hero to zero. Not worth it after putting fuel in my car.

Spent all weekend trying to organise contact with my kids, was too upset to post anything yesterday as the idea was approved most of the day then denied. Maybe not next holidays but the ones after that. Yeah, um, OK, well if thats what the children want...

If you have a point to make, make it, don't refer to a book that none of us has an interest in purchasing.

--

dear savlon,

I HAVE made every possible point in my book.

If you don't want to be informed then don't

but DOTA, FCOL give me strength, Lindsay Jackel and Uncle Buck and all those that TOOK the $75,000 per annum on offer from Howard in the Cash for Comment deal.

You surely must be joking if you want to HELP those screwed by the CSA

Peter Hume:"You still have not shown how the argument would not equally apply to the fact that women biologically cause sexual desire in men, therefore there is a moral justification for forcing women to provide satisfaction of that interest?; or that women ‘acted out of their own interest at the time’ in causing sexual desire in men … so therefore coercion is justified?"

I'd say that's a red herring in regard to my proposal, which holds both parents equally liable for costs, as well as placing some direct burden on all those other parties who may benefit in the future by the existence of children now.

Given that there is mutual benefit to the initial contract implied by the consent to have sex and that a foreseeable potential consequence for both parties is the production of children then in the absence of an explicit agreement there is an implied obligation on both parties to make arrangements to maintain those progeny that may arise.

By linking payments to the children, not simply placing them in the "consolidated revenue" available to the parent with majority custody, my proposal extends the concept used in the Aboriginal Communities of the NT to all single-parent households. There is extensive evidence that children suffer abuse and neglect at far higher rates in single-parent, especially single-mother headed households and especially in such households with very low incomes.

Peter Hume:"The fact that poorer people can’t afford to buy as much stuff as richer people is because they are poorer. The solution is to earn more money, not forced redistribution schemes. "

Once again, I agree in principle, but that will never fly. If genuine change is to be brought about, then a schema that takes cognisance of Treaty obligations is necessary.

The current scheme relies for legitimacy on its compliance with such obligations, so that is a minimum requirement. To achieve that, it is likely that some redistribution is required. Further, if the burden of CS is removed from those fathers who are poverty-stricken, as eloquently expressed by Patthebogan, then a barrier to their workforce participatiuon is removed. If parents on higher incomes wish to spend more than a minimal amount on their children, then they should do so. Perhaps they may even be able to employ some of the low-skilled men who would be likely to become available to work?

The "privilege not to work" is not at issue. Under my proposal, the parents would both have an obligation to support themselves at least as great as the one they bear now. All that would change is the "poverty trap" created for many low-skilled men who become fathers, either willingly or not, and their children. The situation for their mothers would not change, except that their incentive to coerce the father through the CSA would be gone and they would have more spare time to look for work since the fathers would be taking a larger share of the custodial burden.

Overall, I suggest that the taxpayer would be better off under my proposal. Apart from the $500million or so that the CSA wastes on itself, there would be a saving in community services budgets, which are disproportionately spent on the most poverty-stricken parts of the community and in the cost of supporting litigious mothers in court.

I agree with you 100% about the rest of the subsidies, like day care, pension, etc. Apply the money direstly to the children via special-purpose accounts and the justification for such things is greatly reduced.

At present there is a strong linkage in public policy between "single mothers and their children", but that is not a necessary linkage, merely an historical hangover and a convenient political position.

I understand that you think it’s a red herring, but the point is, you haven’t shown why. You may disagree with my argument: you but you haven't refuted it. You have not shown why anyone should be liable for any costs, other than those who voluntarily undertake to raise the child.

Nor have you shown that there is any problem with sole parents not being able to afford to raise their own children themselves.

Nor have you shown why, if there is such a problem, it should not be solved by those parents earning more money.

Nor have you shown why, if they have a problem with doing that, it would not be better solved by abolishing the many laws, taxes and occupational restrictions that prevent such people from working.

The whole thing is a big non-problem. It is caused entirely by governmental intervention, meddling with people's freedoms, in an attempt to win votes, by people trying to get something for nothing, but using force to take it from others. It's completely unethical, and creates unnecessary division and hostility.

The last thing we should be doing is copying the disastrous welfare policies that have been inflicted on the Aboriginal community. There is no need whatsoever for governments to try to administer the fine details of family life. It’s a dreadful idea. People naturally and spontaneously form themselves into families for their mutual benefit, without any help from government. How do you think the human race got here?

The fact that children are better off with the father’s contribution is not an argument in favour of compelling fathers to pay for them. It’s an argument in favour of requiring mothers to do what is necessary to obtain the father’s consent for such payments.

The essential ethical defect of your argument is the idea that sole parents, most of whom are women, should not have to do anything in exchange for money. Why not? Why shouldn’t they have to provide some kind of valuable consideration in exchange for the valuable consideration they are receiving?

Australian men are cast in the role of third-class citizens, mules and asses whose job is to support the two privileged classes of women and children, who can and do despise men’s contributions as required.

In consenting to have sex, there is no implied contract to pay for any resulting children. That’s the whole point. Such a contract is a complete fiction. It’s ethically no different to saying that in causing sexual desire in men, a woman forms an “implied contract” to have sex with them, and they may justifiably use violence and threats to enforce ite. It’s moral nonsense. You still have not got past the original problem that your argument is that biological causation gives rise to moral justification for violence. It doesn’t.

As for the childless, don’t blame them! Especially not those who, out of prudence, have delayed having children until they can afford them. Why should they be forced to pay for people who want to raise children, but couldn’t be bothered turning their minds to how they are going to provide for them? It is true that the childless benefit from human society, but so does everyone else. That’s not a justification for forcibly taking income from some people, and handing it out to others who are exempt from the social obligation to provide from *consent-based* value in return.

Current policy is an unethical and illogical program of negative eugenics: penalizing the most diligent, prudent and productive people, to pay for the least.

But let me ask you this way: Suppose all compulsory child support were abolished, including CSA and sole parents pension. What would be the problem with that? Why should not those who want to raise a child earn the money themselves by providing services to others for payment

But let me ask you this way: Suppose all compulsory child support were abolished, including CSA and sole parents pension.

--

Peter, the first thing in any "Crusade" is to get facts correct, eg we have not had sole parents pension for over 10 years now.

So to help you I just noticed that I have provided FREE the whole Centrelink Chapter in my book, so go there and bone up m'lud.

THEN, understanding the facts, you can come back and give us your theories on how to save the world, and for sure be very aware of the Crimes Act provisions against the CSA, for indeed it is very evident that they DO offend the Crimes Act. Indeed any mechanism to "abolish" them as you and OP say must be prosecuted in a court under Crimes Act, and it was Dr Robert Kelso and myself that forced the govt to add those sections in 2000 or so.

If you simply do what is called "boo hoo, they orta change the law", then you are going nowhere and the CSA will love you.

Peter does not wish to comprehend the law, as he wishes to live outside it DD, and if he had his way, for just a day, would reverse every Act and legislation Government ever implemented; the majority of laws taking into consideration people from all walks of life;not just one person named Peter.

A person [going only by the rantings on OLO] who thinks only of himself and not of children or the disadvantaged. Peter, tell me, do you have children you raised 100% of the time and paid for? Too late for your way of thinking: Laws, Acts, and Legislation will not be reversed in this country. Acts are amended or updated; few abolished or completely replaced.

No offence Peter, I am sure you have wonderful qualities, however I am damn thankful that you are not in a position to change any part of the current laws. From all your comments to date, I can graphically envisage the type of society my children, family, friends and work mates would be living in. Crime and suicide rates would escalate dramatically with changes you suggest to date. That would not concern you though, as your concept is to leave every person to totally fend for themselves in this world regardless of these people having paid their taxes through life for 20 or 30 years contributing to society, then befallen with a major obstacle on one occasion, in turn, requiring short term assistance. Under your laws, there would be NO assistance for any person in crises; temporary or permanent.

Sound cold hearted? Read your previous suggestive posts on OLO. Although you do not need to read your posts, as you know exactly the crap you are pushing for your own agenda, lifestyle and addictions.

Any person who wishes to lower the age of consent for children I find suspicious to say the least. This is a primary indicator that a person does not have the best interests of children at heart. Why would any one bother reading with respect what you advocate

Wow, a whole lot of mind-reading, personal argument, straw men, misrepresentation and assuming what is in issue from WAU. He responds with aggressive irrelevance when his ideas are challenged with reason. How amazingly intelligent and persuasive.
But one thing he didn’t do is show why there is a problem in the first place, how he knows, what is the justification for compulsion, how the same justification doesn’t apply wherever the same reasoning applies, and why those who want to raise children shouldn’t pay for them themselves, or obtain the funding voluntarily. So … why not? And spare me the tedious drivel. Just answer the question. Why shouldn’t they?
Your assumption that civil society depends on forced redistributions which you are unable to justify, merely shows your moral and intellectual confusion.

DD
I’m afraid you are going to have to do better than remark that we don’t have a sole parents pension and refer me to absent authority.

All
The men of Australia have got rocks in their head for voting for any party that supports the current regime of family law so hostile to men’s interests and personal liberty alike. The CSA does not further an agenda of equality but a double standard, in which women get money to do what they would have wanted to do anyway, without having to provide anything in return, and when anyone dares to question it, we get the ignorant ad hominem attacks which WAU has typified

This thread has been one big long whine by people who were unable get the decisions they wanted from the CSA. They then extrapolate that the CSA is against "males".

The CSA treats noncustodial parents as "noncustodial parents", nothing else. They make decisions for women to pay support, not "just" men .... a fact totally ignored here by some: It's obvious why.

Peter Hume, I can see no point whatever in arguing for a completely laissez faire approach to this subject, since that will never get up. Far better to accept that redistribution is a bi-partisan fact of life and incorporate it as part of any proposal. Let's assume that we're agreed that this may not be perfect, but it is a pragmatic approach within the political environment that we have.

I like the idea of a broad-based specific purpose levy for a few reasons. Firstly, it is obvious what the money is for, which means it is dificult to use it for other purposes. Secondly, it is broad and it allows those people who choose childlessness or have it forced upon them to contribute directly to a common good from which they stand to benefit. Thirdly, it decouples time in care from financial considerations, since the money is attached directly to the child, not given to a parent to spend willy-nilly. Fourthly, it reduces the disincentive to work that is inherent in the curreent scheme.

There are other reasons, but that's the nub of it.

The CSA must go, I don't think that anyone except employees of the Agency like benq or women who can't stand the idea of their ex getting on with his life free of their badgering who would disagree. The only real question is what replaces it.

You say:"The essential ethical defect of your argument is the idea that sole parents, most of whom are women, should not have to do anything in exchange for money" which is not the case. I suggest applying the money to the child's benefit directly, not giving it to the parent, which is a method that has been tried and failed.

DD, your inability to write coherently tends to undermine your claims.

benq just in case there is any confusion.

Do you have a stake in this issue which would has the potential to bias your own views?

You claim knowledge of how the CSA operates in practice but have not declared where that knowledge comes from. You denegrate other posters on the assumption that our views of CSA were formed by not getting what we want rather than the observed bias that many have experienced.

What is your stake in this?
a) concerned bystander with no real knowledge of how CSA treats it's clients in practice.
b) CSA employee or consultant
c) supporter of one of the mothers groups
d) other - please clarify.

I've sat in the session where the details of my income statements were subject to intense scrutiny while my ex's contentions that the level of deductions based on a previous role would still apply to an entirely different role were accepted at face value.

I've had other dealings where the maternal bias was blatent. I've spoken to enough other parents who deal with CSA and seen how clear the patterns are in their complaints about CSA are. CSA does hurt us all but it also operates with a clear gender bias.

Again what is your stake in this?

R0bert

I’m afraid you are going to have to do better than remark that we don’t have a sole parents pension and refer me to absent authority.
--

I explained above and referred you to FREE Chapter in book at www.ablokesguide.com but let me summarise:

it started as lone mothers pension back in Middle Earth time, became sole mother, then sole PARENT after Barry Williams made his stand as a single dad [and sat on the CSA forming committee in 1988, so you can blame Bazza for a lot of the problem].

The word pension had the wrong vibes so in 1998 or so it became Parenting Payment but Costello did his welfare to work gig in 2006 or so and mums simply get Newstart [same as dad] and of course all the other things like Family Tax Benefit A and B, but as Parenting Payment was about about 10% more than what dad got for Newstart [but still had to support himself, pay min CS and kids while on "visitations"] they called it ENHANCED Newstart.

The deal is simply no form to fill in per fortnite if there are any kids under 6. If not mum has to do her Newstart return every fortnight, but being a mum of course ....... [fill in the dots].

To everyone above firstly to savlon, I already told you we simply return to 1987 situation if CSA zapped [and CSA own figures say the average payment per kid was $60 pw (in 2010 dollars) BEFORE CSA was born, but CSA can't even crack the $40 pw barrier].

to be cont

cont

As for the "they orta change the law", I am sure you mean legislation, well that IS the problem with CSA they do NOT have any intention of obeying the law, SO the way to keep them in check was to continually haul them before a court and quote the legislation to judge and he say you win.

RObert, have you read s 65 of CSAAct? - the whole COAT gig is simply advisory with NO QUESTIONS to be asked according to the CSAAct. The sure indication is no rules of evidence is stated in Part 6A, ie it is simply intended as advice on "how you might go in court under Part 7", but CSA [Mr Reithmuller to be exact] has made it more Draconian than Spanish Inquisition.

As I say Howard overcame that [with help of Cash for Comment droogs at $75,000 pa] by changing legislation to LOOK LIKE there was no longer access to a court, so with retirement of blokes like myself, Kelso et al the blokes now simply ACCEPT no access to courts, so CSA just becomes:

"It is a creature of its own creation. It is getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. It is bureaucratically .. it is eating itself".

that famous quote coming from Bell J in Gilmour case back in 1996.

Oh wise old judge Justice Bell. I even asked if I could quote him and he said I could.

Robert, I have no stake.

Several people here have openly stated "their" stake. They have had decisions go against them. They then extrapolate that those decisions are because of "gender bias". Using the same twisted logic, when a decision goes against a woman that must mean there's a gender bias against the woman. Embittered people usually don't think logically regarding the source of their embitterment - - - in this case the CSA.

I repeat, women (not "only" men) have CSA decisions go against them. A fact that the protagonists here never seem to mention. That says it all. Acknowledgment of that fact (without prompting from people like me) would show their gender bias claims are based on "opinion" only.

There's one thing I've found in life - - - - "opinion" and facts are usually two different things, especially when people feel embittered, cast aside and unable to readily rectify a "perceived" injustice.

benq:"I have no stake"

The problem with your view is that it is based entirely on your perception that my view is just sour grapes. You have no evidence for your view, I have a great deal of evidence for mine as do the hundreds of thousands of other men who have had to deal with this poor excuse for a dog's breakfast.

On one of the very first occasions I had to deal with the CSA, I rang up to inquire about a letter I received which was informing me that I had a debt of $1200 for 2 months worth of child support, which was surprising because I was unemployed at the time and we'd only been separated for a month. As soon as I said "I'm puzzled by this", I got a tirade including "we're used to dealing with people like you", "don't you care about your kids, you deadbeats are all the same" and more in the same vein. The woman was not even remotely interested in hearing that her dates and income information were wrong or in hearing that I was unemployed, just in making threats and abusing me.

That was the start of a 10 year nightmare of dishonesty, threats, abuse and complete incompetence and unaccountability. I will no longer deal with the Agency on the phone - that's a recipe for disaster, since the CSA person can say "he said" and then you have no way of proving otherwise. All dealings are in writing or in a recorded meeting. The CSA is not keen on recorded meetings. I have ha staff refuse to hold the meeting on two occasions as soon as I brought out the recorder and had decisions reversed when I brought out the recording showing where she said she'd do one thing and then did another.

[cont]

At the same time, the Agency demands that I respond by phone to their letters and ignores responses via their website made within their own deliberately shortened timeframes.

I routinely receive letters from the Agency dated a week or more before the date of franking. The usual thing is to ask for a response within a week of the date of the letter, which is prima facie reasonable, then sit on it for 5 days before sending it, so the effective notice time is 0 - I am expected to respond to complex matters via phone on the same day I hear about them. I have checked with my ex and she does not experience this. She claims her letters arrive within a day or so of their date.

I could go on for many pages on this subject.

You're going to have to do better than just trying to "poison the well" by claiming sour grapes, I'm afraid. A small tip, if one person is complaining about a perceived problem, it's possibly his problem. If a lot of people who have never met are all complaining about the same problem, it's probably really a problem.

If, as you claim, the CSA is not inherently discriminatory then the only explanation is that it is so incompetently run that it has no chance of fulfilling its assigned role.Either way, it has to go. It makes the environment department look good when it comes to mismanagement.

benq, "Several people here have openly stated "their" stake. They have had decisions go against them." that's not quite what people are saying.

In my case it's a combination of the pattern of complaint against CSA that I've heard from others and the blatent difference in the treatment I've seen first hand from CSA compared to that given to my ex (in one case in the same meeting but also over time). Not about a decision but the treatment on the way to a decision.

It's not just about decisions going against men, it's about an organisation that treat's men and women differently regardless of who has the custody.

How often have you heard women expressing the view that they have been discriminated against by CSA on the basis of gender? Their complaint is normally about CSA's failure to do what they say they will do.

Don't be so quick to attack (and misrepresent) the concerns of others, if you have no stake in this then it's unlikely that you have the first hand knowledge of how CSA operates in practice to so readily dismiss those concerns.

R0bert

Several people here have openly stated "their" stake. They have had **decisions** go against them.

--

well that's just it mate, the CSR is only ALLOWED to make determinations [ie advisory only, same as Privacy Commissioner] under Part 6A. A person that likes or dislikes that determination can make applic to a court under Part 7 and bingo we are complying with Constitution [see Brandy case re this].

the "Change of Assessment" was as Bell J suggests "a creature of its own creation", and the first thing is as Antiseptic says NEVER EVER talk on phone to CSA. In fact say "under Privacy Act I require you to delete my phone number from your records or I will get a s 98 injunction from a court".

They know all about that and will delete your number. You have now put your stake in the ground and most probably they will simply leave you in peace as the soft belly count they CAN attack is over a million [testosterone fuelled] blokes. It's all about being smarter than them.

I mean what a lovely situation to have for CSA - the legislation says no need for Rules of Evidence as the end result is only advisory determination. CSR simply makes it a DECISION and "changes the assess" [having INVENTED the term COA himself]. Even Nazi govt had rules of evidence for decision. So mum can lie her ass off, and does

Robert, you've manoeuvred this into a no win situation for me, you easily have it all covered. If I say I have no stake then all my writings are dismissed by you because according to you I supposedly must not know what I'm talking about. And if I say I do have a stake then all my writings are dismissed by you because I must then be biased (just look at the lists of demands to me written in your last post on page 7 where you ask what my stake is - - - - you are clearly fishing for bias from me).

You're not thinking logically. I'll repeat what I said earlier, " 'Opinion' and facts are usually two different things especially when people feel embittered, cast aside and unable to readily rectify a 'perceived' injustice".

Antiseptic, you have listed a long series of complaints about how you've been treated by the CSA.

Your "assumption" is that this treatment is because you are specifically "male".

Please read this, " 'Opinion' and facts are usually two different things especially when people feel embittered, cast aside and unable to readily rectify 'perceived' wrongs".

I've read quite a few of your posts on this forum, and you readily use personal put downs, sarcasm, show aggression when things don't go your way in discussion and when pushed display outright personal abuse. Now antiseptic, if in real life you behave in anything close to the way you behave here on this forum, there is little wonder you have had so much trouble with the CSA.

If I was a betting man I'd bet your **behaviour** is the problem with the CSA, and not the fact that you are male.

"Opinion" and facts are usually two different things especially when people feel embittered, cast aside and unable to readily rectify "perceived" wrongs.

Divorce Doctor, is there a reason why you write as you do?

It might help you if you write in clearly understood English. You're mostly ignored here, and that's because your English composition and syntax are a nightmare.

If you "genuinely" want discussion (which I doubt, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being)then it's necessary to make yourself fully understood. Your fractured English makes this impossible.

I suspect you "can" write properly, but for some reason choose to write in the manner that you do.

benq you have come in with such an unfair load of assumptions about other posters and such certainty that CSA is not gender biased that you have maneuvered yourself into that position.

It is valid to have an opinion without a clear personal stake in an issue, you have gone well beyond that in attacking those who claim to have experienced and defending the lack of bias on the part of CSA.

You have not at any stage tried to gain more detail as to why those you attack claim bias rather than poor personal interactions with CSA, rather dismissing us from the start and claimed that there is no bias. You have repeatedly ignored comments regarding the patterns of complaint against CSA.

You come across in a similar manner to a racist claiming that there is no racism, it's just that those <pick you preferred colour> people don't know how to behave properly.

R0bert

That's ok Robert, I understand your defensiveness. You've been hurt, and bitterness is a very hard thing to live with.

As I've said before decisions have gone against non custodial parents who are women.

Because someone loses a case does not mean they lost it because they are "male".

If someone has continuing problems with communication with the CSA it does not mean that happens because they are "male".

Because some men decide to talk about their bad CSA experiences on a forum does not mean the CSA has mistreated them because they are "male".

Again, CSA makes decisions against women too. Women lose as well.

I see where the proposition has been put that a child's father not have to contribute more than an average taxpayer. Nevermind that the resident parent (whether female or male, but most often female) continues to put in the time, energy and expense, delay careers and other goals (alone) - in fact to shape their life around raising the offspring ahead of whatever their personal wants may be. Meanwhile the departing father can "get on with his life". Alongside that, no doubt there are some fathers who will still expect to have a say in what's happening or to see his children at his convenience - as long as no body expects him to pay a lousy bit of cash that wouldn't equate with a car payment or a few tokes and a carton.

Anyone who objects to paying child support or who wants to have freedom over personal time and energy, is going to feel they've been hard done by when these things are required of them.

Not all separated, non-resident parents are griping over meeting the sorts of requirements of anyone mature enough to be a parent:

<"During 2006-2007 the CSA received only 9,151 complaints representing only 0.63 per cent of its 1.45 million customers. This compares favorably with 2004-2005, when 12,274 formal complaints were lodged, which is 0.9 per cent of the 1.36 million customers.

A nationwide survey of customers in August 2007 found that 74 per cent of parents receiving child support and 60 per cent of customers paying child support agreed that the CSA is improving its service delivery to customers. Further, 59 per cent of receiving parents and 48 per cent of paying parents also agreed that CSA is now communicating better with parents, the community and stakeholders and overall 99 per cent of parents are satisfied with CSA's new communication products like its regular newsletter, self help products and guide for new customers.">

http://www.csa.gov.au/media/building-a-better-csa.aspx

hi,

Firstly i am quite amazed at the amount of time that some people have to post to forums such as this. With regard to a bias against men within the CSA I can categorically state that this is simply not true. Based on what has been posted here there seems to be an assumption that decisions by the CSA are always found in favour of women. I am a woman, the CSA was supposed to collect child support to help with the costs of raising a child as per the legislation. However the other party managed to create a situation where a decision was made in his favour that went completely against the agency's own policies and procedures. I have the proof and it is the basis for a compensation claim against the agency - a claim the agency has no defence against. The actions by the agency were a result of corruption perpetrated by the other party. So please stop crying that the CSA is biased against fathers because it simply is not.
Tired

Divorce Doctor, is there a reason why you write as you do?

It might help you if you write in clearly understood English. You're mostly ignored here, and that's because your English composition and syntax are a nightmare.
--

This is a legal matter and in fact a matter where the "law" is simply being ignored. The solution is to put CSA "before the law" and get "reform". My posts are therefore in "legal talk", and if you non comprennez then obviously you have no chance of any reform action.

But seems you don't WANT reform, do you?

Any questions?

Divorce Doctor,

I concur that your posts are lacking complete sentence structure and syntax. You state it is because you are writing in legal terms, unfortunately this is not correct as even in legal documentation you will find correct sentence structure and syntax.

You seem to believe that reform is necessary and possibly that is true, but while you fail to structure your correspondence in a legible way, you will be ignored or brushed off by most people.

Tired

OK droogs please give specific instances where you don't follow my parley vous and I will explain word for word

I can do no more than that [save for you simply go to my book - for sure Howard/Parky understood perfectly].

eg HCA is High Court of Australia - it's not all that hard

DD I have to add that I don't have any trouble reading your posts.

I like unusual language use and of course your terminology and rhythm is very Anthony Burgess (A Clockwork Orange).

Interestingly, while CO gave the impression of being deconstructionist etc.; in the summing up it conveyed a quite conservative world view. Which sok mind.

I get the impression that your fundamental message and the way it is packaged is somewhat the same sort of combination.

Divorce Doctor, on page 3 you claimed that CSA "illegality" causes the deaths of "3 good fathers" every day.

That's 1095 deaths of "good fathers" every year.

Which is 24,090 deaths of "good fathers" since the CSA was established in 1988.

Will you please now produce, on this website, the full documentation and proof regarding the deaths of these 24,090 "good fathers". In other words, show your claim is truthful.

To all - - - - I'm more than happy to admit that the CSA is biased against people specifically because they're "male", if that claim can be **PROVEN**.
But remember, because a man lost a case, had difficulty communicating with the CSA, disagrees with the outcome, and knows 10, 50, 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 other men's cases where men also were told to pay child support that they felt was unfair DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS AN ANTI MALE CSA BIAS. It means that those specific cases were cases that went against the men involved. There are cases that go against women, where the women feel aggrieved, and this is totally, absolutely, 100% ignored by the embittered male protagonists here.

Can even one person here produce one shred of **CONCRETE** proof that the CSA has bias against men because they are men? So far nobody has been able to get even close to that. What we've had is: opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion and more opinion that there's this horrid CSA conspiracy against males.

I suppose I shouldn't give it attention, but I can't resist.

It's interesting to note that it took Robert 9 pages until he started comparing me to "racists".

Even though I'm not a betting man I'm prepared to take bets regarding how many more pages will pass till someone compares me to (1) a nazi (2) a communist (3) a fascist (4) Tinkerbell.

Come in spinner.

benq: <"Even though I'm not a betting man I'm prepared to take bets regarding how many more pages will pass till someone compares me to (1) a nazi (2) a communist (3) a fascist (4) Tinkerbell">

Beng just as well you said you were a bloke or you also might have been called a man-hating feminist.

Benq the logic is the same. You refuse to conceed the possibility that CSA could be biased so you assume that the fault lies entirely with those reporting bias. I've not called you a racist but did use an analogy to highlight the approach you have taken.

You claim that you don't have a personal stake in the issue and if that's the case you really are not close enough to it to legitimately dismiss what others have experienced so dogmatically.

R0bert

Benq:"Logical and reasoned debate is impossible with people who "genderise" such issues."

Nice, start out by trying to "poison the well": (these men have issues, you can ignore them). A nice extra feature was the effort to assume the "disinterested observer on the moral high ground" position, but you screwed that up when you tried to have two bob each way in answer to R0bert's question.

Benq:"From the very first post this topic was "genderised". "

Erm, no, from the very first inception of the CSActs it was genderised. The first post was merely an expression of the genderised nature of the Agency's dealings.

Benq:"The inaccurate assumption was that the CSA is interested only in getting money from fathers."

Prove it's inaccurate. Unsupported claims from people who follow up with a string of fallacious "reasoning" are best ignored in my experience.

Benq:"The truth is the CSA is interested in getting money from non-custodial "parents" - - - male and female."

The Act is non-discriminatory in its language, the Agency is discriminatory in its practise. Glad we got that cleared up.

Benq:"Logical and reasoned debate is impossible with people who "genderise" such issues. They are often bitter, hurt and mixed up - - -and clear thinking logic goes out the door, as evidenced by several posts here. Usually it's just best to leave such people to their own devices, and no amount of posting and reasoning will ever change or help them. It's a sad reality of life."

Oh, lovely work. An appeal to popularity combined with an appeal to ridicule, all pasted over an ad hominem and wrapped up with a natty effort to poison the well. Are you sure you're not Severin?

Benq:"Bitterness and hurt doesn't allow for clear, reasoned thinking."

Burden of proof reversed, unsupported claim to authority implied.

Benq:"the enemy is not the CSA"

Noone suggests it is an "enemy", merely that it is so dysfunctional that it must be abandoned. Part of that dysfunction is the gender bias that is often reported.

The rest of that post is just an exercise in blame-shifting

benq:"Will you please now produce, on this website, the full documentation and proof regarding the deaths of these 24,090 "good fathers". In other words, show your claim is truthful."

The reasoning is something like this:

1. Most CSA "payers" are relatively young men
2. The rate of suicide among young men is disproportionately high
3. The rate of CSA cases being discharged due to death of the payer is, for the only year in which data was published, something like 2000 cases.
4. Many of those young men who suicide have been found with notes directly blaming the CSA
5. Further data is not available becaue the CSA will not cooperate with coroners on the grounds of privacy provisions of the Act, which I don't believe have yet been tested in the case of a suicide.

I do apologise for using logical reasoning if it confuses you.

Now, where's your proven, documentary evidence (in full, of course) that the CSA in completely competent in every respect?

Beng just as well you said you were a bloke or you also might have been called a man-hating feminist

--

yes but even man hating fems grow tired of abusing if no money involved and that was the genius of Howard/Ruddock, ie Cash for Comment. By 2005 we had all types of semi informed but mostly uninformed blokes ranting "they orta change the law", even the protest in Canberra, but arguing more amongst themselves.

As such they were doing nothing to help anybody but CFC idea was to get them firstly all pulling together [npi] and secondly all pulling for CSA/govt.

The AG site advertised that NOBODY would receive a grant over $75,000 pa unless "fully checked out", but that was simply code for ANY ratbag could get 75 gorillas, so they did, and I have no idea or interest if Kev 07 still keeps it going.

anyway they were herded into a website [with forum] which gave Politically Correct advice to deadbeats [as Howard called them] and hid behind names [called avatars or similar], with many being cars eg Monaro. So seems benz may be one such leftover from those times, otherwise he would not be wasting his time

Antiseptic: <"The rate of CSA cases being discharged due to death of the payer is, for the only year in which data was published, something like 2000 cases.
4. Many of those young men who suicide have been found with notes directly blaming the CSA">

1. Not all payers are male. (10-11% are female)
2. "Many" is non specific - 1, 2, 3 or 100, 200, 300?
3. "Death" occurs from a range of causes; suicide being just one.

From compilation of recorded facts:

# There were 2,191 deaths from suicide registered in Australia 2008; a rate of 10.2 per 100,000.

# Since at least the 1920s, more males than females die by suicide each year. In 2008, 1,710 males and 481 females died by suicide. Thus in 2008, 78% of people who died by suicide were males and 22% were females.

# Since 1999, the suicide rate in Australia has fallen by 22%, with the suicide rate for males falling by 25% and that for females by 12%.

http://www.responseability.org/site/index.cfm?display=134569

Pynchme:"because you can't give concrete figures their deaths are unimportant. carry on"

Right you are then...

Not exlusively males because 10% or so are females... which sounds kind of fairer than saying 90% of persecutions are males.

Benq... mission accomplished, you have stirred people up and been noticed. You dont need entrenched gender-biased policy written on paper for it to be so. The fact that mostly when the family separates the kids stay with their mother, which many people including myself have no issue with. By extension, most of the people the CSA hassles are in fact, male. Therefore, the CSA is targetting a 90% male population. If I walk into a room with 9 women and 1 man, I would describe a room with 10 people. If you ask me anything about the gender characteristics of the people in the room, I would perhaps erroneously describe a poor bloke in a room full of women...
No stake in it? Oh I dont believe that for one second my friend, but you might fool some people, yourself mostly I suspect.

I have 2 ex's, one goes through CSA and the other does not. The one that does not, gets some money from me. The one that does, gets the warm feeling of knowing they scrounge $20 out of my centrelink payments. I dont think she actually gets any of it, but I suspect it isnt about money at all. I hate the way the CSA has tried and tried to get my reasonable ex to join their program, she says she is sick of it too. We can talk and get along ok, I give her whatever she asks for, she does not ask for unreasonable things. We genuinely dont need their interference. I would really like to join the workforce again, but I think I will be too old in 10 more years or so. So I wont be paying back my HECS debt either.

Pat I think that it goes further than just the proportion of clients in different roles. I'm not privy to the internal working of CSA but at a guess staff training would include
- a gendered coverage of DV issues
- some tidied up material around their role in combating "deadbeat dads"
I suspect that you would also get a percentage of people who work there in part because they want to help women.
There is probably some hardening of attitudes towards men because of the reactions of men who see CSA as yet another nail in the coffin (a financial incentive for the ex to try to reduce access to children).

I don't try to get money from my ex, I think that we are all better off with financial ties broken. I get the freedom of her decisions not having any impact on me and the freedom of her never reacting to the feeling that she has paid for something I've bought. Our son never suffers the backwash of us arguing over money (arguments over money was a significant factor in our marriage hassles in the first place so why perpetuate it?).

Those who do want people to move on, those who want separated/divorced parents to have the best chance at cooperating at parenting even though apart have little credible option but to work towards the removal of any system which keeps parents tied together financially against their will.

I think that there is room for debate on what the alternatives are but there is little reason to support the current scheme and the damage it does.

R0bert

Perhaps we all need to be "gender-neutral" or whatever the current trendy incarnation of that is. They certainly come across as biased against fathers, the last one I spoke to sounded lesbian (gruff, called me mate, only wanted to read me the letter over the phone, very aggro and defensive... before you ask how I guessed).
They can be as completely gender neutral as gender neutral can be, with 10% female 90% male people to harrass...

My alternative, would be a suitably qualified social worker (no minority groups, 50-50 men and women) visits one parent then the other and explains what everybody wants and what might be a reasonable compromise. Then same person looks at finances and employment of both parents, maybe start putting a figure together to be discussed. The same social worker then assesses what level of contact and custody each has, and whether both parents are happy with it. Any other issues can be dealt with at this stage hopefully, and then the social worker kind of fades into the background and the parents be left to it. I think it would have higher initial costs but be cheaper in the longer term, it would be more effective when fathers take ownership of of it.
It wont be great, but much better I think.

Antiseptic: Confabulating something I didn't say: <"Pynchme:"because you can't give concrete figures their deaths are unimportant. carry on"

Right you are then...">

You didn't provide concrete figures to support your inferences. I went and found the figures that show that suicide rates have been dropping for about the past century, with the largest drop for male suicide of 25% occurring in the past decade.

Figures also make apparent the exploitation of male suicide rates and male death rates to try and heap some unwarranted blame on the CSA.

If you care about male mortality, you would consider the proper range of causes of suicide, such as one or a combination of: childhood abuse; grief - such as that caused by loss of work or breakdown of relationships; rape; drug and alcohol use; mental health conditions of various types; chronic illness and so on.

Their deaths are important enough that health authorities have worked hard to reduce the rate by 25% in the past decade; rather than exploit them for some personally self serving agenda.

"...it would be more effective when fathers take ownership of of it."

Oh?

Difficult to see how it would be better when one father at least is whinging here about being obliged to pay $20.00 and another thinks it's an imposition to pay anything at all.

"I would really like to join the workforce again"

You would really rather not use that degree or whatever you obtained via HECS, deprive your kids of a reasonable standard of support and yourself of a career goal, just to - what? what's the purpose and satisfaction for you in refusing to contribute to the cost of raising your kids?

Pat: <"The fact that mostly when the family separates the kids stay with their mother, which many people including myself have no issue with">

At least you are being honest I suspect about this. History shows that when authority over children was automatically held by the father, that usually his mother or a maiden sister ended up raising them. In a time when men were expected to go to work and there was extended family available, no doubt it made sense.

- but why wouldn't you want to raise your kids?

I see Divorce Doctor has not been able to reply to my contention that his claim regarding male suicides needs proof if it is to be taken seriously. If he makes up figures in one area (based on his 'opinion'), then he's capable of making other false claims.

He claimed 3 deaths of fathers every day are a result of CSA "illegality" (his term). That equals 1095 deaths of fathers per year.

The Aust. Bureau Of Statistics says Australia's suicide rate is about 1 in 10,000 per year. This includes male and female. That equates to about 2,200 suicides in Australia every year. Divorce Doctor would like to have us believe that 1095 of these suicides in Australia are committed by fathers because of CSA "illegality". Now, because we're only talking about suicides of "males", Divorce Doctor's figures would add up to WELL over 50% of all male suicides. Absolutely ludicrous: And absolutely untruthful.

Divorce Doctor now has no credibility here.

It's interesting to note that the other main protagonist here, antiseptic, when commenting on my initial reply to Divorce Doctor's claim that this many fathers die as a result of CSA "illegality", did NOT for one second dispute Divorce Doctor's outrageously false "opinion". That speaks for itself. It shows how embittered people can often be strangers to truth.

Robert wrote on page 11, " you refuse to accept the possibility that CSA could be biased".

INCORRECT. A false claim based on mere "opinion".

You should have actually read my written statement on the same page which was posted **PRIOR**, just several posts **PRIOR**, to your above quoted accusation.

This is what I wrote, " To all - - - - I'm more than happy to admit that the CSA is biased against people specifically because they're 'male', if that claim can be proven".

So there ya go.

As I've stated before, so far we have not had one shred of evidence that the CSA discriminates against males because of their gender.

If CSA non custodial clients are 90% male and 10% female, as has been stated here, **OBVIOUSLY** about 9 times as many payment orders will be made against the men, compared to the women. THIS IS **NOT** gender bias, for obvious reasons. Also, you will almost certainly have 9 male complaints compared to every 1 female complaint, NOT because there is an anti male gender bias, but simply because male non custodial clients greatly outnumber female non custodial clients by 9 to 1.

So far, the anti CSA protagonists here have been incapable of showing there's a gender "bias" within the CSA.

What we've had is:

opinion

opinion

opinion

opinion

from people who have had difficulty communicating with CSA, and people who have had decisions against them that they believe to be unfair. Their "opinion" and "assumption" is that their CSA difficulties are the result of them being specifically "male".

I've already informed antiseptic, within this topic, that his problems may very well be because of his manner and attitude and NOT because he's "male". In topics on this site that don't go his way I've noticed he eventually gets sarcastic, aggressive and rude. I've told him that if he's like that in "real" life, then that's a very good reason why he's had so much trouble. No company, government department or any organisation gives best service to rude and arrogant/aggressive clients

Antiseptic wrote, "Now where's your proven documentary evidence, in full of course, that the CSA is completely competent in every respect".

As you are aware antiseptic, at no stage have I ever claimed the CSA is either competent, completely competent or completely competent in every respect. Nice ploy though, to word a demand in such a way as to give the "impression" that I actually wrote those things.

I wrote, "An inaccurate assumption was that the CSA is interested in only getting money from fathers", to which antiseptic replied, "Prove it's inaccurate".

Well that's easy: Non custodial orders have been issued against women. Surely you are not saying that since the CSA's origin in 1988, there has not been even one non custodial order issued to a woman? Or are you saying that? Clearly the CSA issues orders against BOTH males and females.

Nice try antiseptic.

I'm still waiting for the proof that the CSA is gender biased: So far you've all failed miserably on that one.

I'll be the loudest one to shout from the hill tops that the CSA practices gender bias against men specifically because they are men **IF** people can prove it. So far all we've had is - - - -

opinion

opinion

and

more opinion

that the CSA practices gender bias.

Not good enough!

benq it's pretty much impossible to prove bias to outsiders if they don't accept first hand accounts and the outsiders are unwilling to consider patterns of complaint. CSA don't allow the recording of meetings so how can I prove to you that their treatment of me was very different to that given to my ex?

A senior manager who occasionally gives a woman a leadership role in a company (when the circumstances leave little choice) can still be biased against women in the management. A racist may still employ coloured people but not give them the roles or rewards their skills warrent, that does not remove legitimate concerns about bias.

Both of the above can be difficult to prove.

Look at the patterns of complaint against the CSA by men and women and you will get enough proof not to be so dismissive of claims of gender bias.

The bias issue is really a side issue to the main harm done by CSA but it is a factor.

R0bert

pynchme, I didn;t make any inferences, I explained what the chain of reasoning is that DD may have used. You responded to try to minimise the claim. I know we're talking about men dying, not women having their feelings hurt, so it's not terribly important to you, but that got my goat a bit.

pynchme:"another thinks it's an imposition to pay anything at all.
"

Who said that? BTW, what's YOUR stake in this? You seem pretty determined to paint suicide by fathers as trivial and fathers generally as unimportant, so what's your stake?

Benq:"That equals 1095 deaths of fathers per year."

Which is what the CSA's own figures showed in the one year they released them (2005). I'll leave the finding of those figures as an exercise for the reader.

Let's assume the figure is not known, but it is known that some fathers do suicide because of the actions of the CSA (many suicide notes have been found implicating the CSA). How many is acceptable in your view? How many would it take to warrant investigation?

benq:"I've already informed antiseptic, within this topic, that his problems may very well be because of his manner and attitude"

So let's unpack that a little. I say:"my first experience with the Agency was that they manufactured a debt from before I separated based on an income that I wasn't earning and accused me of being a deadbeat when I rang to ask about it". You say "that's because you're unpleasant".

Right...

I say:"I won't deal with the Agency except with a tape recorder or in writing because they frequently say one thing and do another". You say: "that's because you're unpleasnt"

Right...

DD says:"many men suicide each year due to the Agency's actions". You say:"you can't prove how many, so who cares?"

Right... but nice summary of the Agency's position

Perhaps the Agency needs to look a bit further afield for their next spin merchant, you seem a bit wet behind the ears?

antiseptic you are correct and I picked it up front with benz that the main thing the CSA wants to hide is the suicides SO that is where their CFC freaks aim.

Benz ignored my legal explanations [as to why all the CSA do is illegal under Part 6A]. I mean they even SAY that The Guide is NOT a legal document but still USE it and ignore legislation.

Of course they have spent millions of tax dollars covering up the number and of course hiding behind a "pronked" thing called a "privacy policy" [there is no such thing, a dept either complies yes/no with PAct and CSA does NOT]

also there is no bias as such, they [an army of moonlighting lawyers] are simply trying to keep their bums on seats, espec the COAT, in a very well paid "fill in" job which generally makes far more for them than their FLPractice. There is a poster here [no names, no packdrill] that I helped that will confirm all about gender bias not.

Robert wrote, "It's pretty much impossible to prove bias to outsiders".

Well Robert, that's 'convenient' isn't it. That means an aggrieved father who has had decisions made that he considers unfair can make unsubstantiated charges safe in the knowledge that he needs NO BURDEN OF PROOF. So he can make a false charge, and it's then up to everyone who disagrees to prove him wrong. Robert, that's just not good enough. If you wish to be taken seriously by others on the gender bias issue you need to present "facts" not "opinions". By approaching it the way you are currently, you are doing your claims of gender bias no service at all.

You claim the treatment given to you was very different to that given to your ex. What do you precisely mean by "treatment".How do you know that this "treatment" was directly related to the fact that you are a "man", rather than the actual circumstances of the case? It's important that you answer the second question as well as the first.

Robert wrote, " Look at the patterns of complaint against the CSA by men and women and you will get enough proof". Ok Robert, here's your chance. Please enlighten me regarding these "patterns of complaint by men and women",

(1) How many complaints per year have been made by male non custodial parents?

(2) How many complaints per year have been made by female non custodial parents?

(3) What is the percentage of male non custodial complaints to total male non custodial clientele?

(4) What is the percentage of female non custodial complaints to total female non custodial clientele?

benq I really don't think you are in the least interested. Rather running distraction to avoid the real topic. I've been silly enough to engage with you far to long on this thread already. I've got better things to do than play your games.

R0bert

I wrote, "That equals 1095 deaths of fathers every year" (my reference to the number of deaths due to CSA "illegality" claimed by Divorce Doctor. Antiseptic replied, " Which is what the CSA's own figures showed".

Antiseptic, doesn't the **TRUTH** matter to you? Do you just want to make false claims because you think they'll advance your argument? Buddy, stop the **SPIN** and start giving us straight comments. You know, I repeat **KNOW**, that those CSA death figures refer only to cases discharged due to the death of the male or female payer. This in NO WAY refers only to suicide by paying fathers. Statistically about this number of discharges due to death would happen every year (there's thousands of ways people die - - - - it's not just suicide). You display a deep disrespect to those people (male and female) who have genuinely committed suicide over childcare matters by misrepresenting death figures with the implication that the discharges are due to suicide. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I wrote, "I have already informed antiseptic that his problems with the CSA may very well be because of his manner and attitude".

Antiseptic then replied to this with a description of how badly he was treated. Antiseptic doesn't seem to understand that I'm not disputing that he was treated badly. Antiseptic believes he's treated badly because of his gender. He dismisses the idea that he may be treated badly because of his aggression and bad attitude.

Not one person here has yet been able to link gender bias to the way they were treated by the CSA, other than it's their "opinion".

Antiseptic wrote, "DD says 'many men suicide due to the agency's actions', you say 'you can't prove how many so who cares?' ".

Another total 100% misrepresentation from antiseptic. I have never written or implied "so who cares". I'm beginning to see how much of a spin merchant is antiseptic.

Gee, Divorce Doctor admits there's no CSA gender bias.

Robert, you claim there's CSA gender bias against males. I'm trying to help you get to the nitty gritty in order to conclusively show that this is factual. The ONLY way to approach this is through **FACTS**. If you present the facts, and only the facts, and back them up with substantiated evidence then your opinion regarding CSA gender bias would carry weight. Think about it. Going away doesn't help your cause.

Maybe a class action against the CSA is a good idea. I'd imagine that would give non custodial fathers who have had decisions and personal treatments go against them, who believe it was because of gender bias, a good chance to show that what they claim is correct. How about it folks?

R0bert, it's yet another iteration of JW, SallyG,etc. My recent correspondence with the Agency must have resulted in her getting another prod with the "why did you screw up so badly, Judith?" spurs.

Poor thing. I wonder how long before her contract is terminated and the work internalised?

Could someone please interpret for me what antiseptic just wrote. Antiseptic, as I said earlier to Divorce Doctor, it's necessary to talk in clear English if you wish to adequately make points and have it fully understood, so that people can reply.

Bye Judy.

Benq, I like your no nonsense style, and the way you have the anti-feminine males of this site on the run! LOL.

Never ask antiseptic what he means....that is just asking for trouble!

The CSA was created by the male politicians of this country years ago when they got sick of paying single or separated mothers money to care for their kids on their own.

Given the choice at the time, many fathers just didn't feel the need to pay for the upkeep of their kids, because it meant paying money to that b**ch who dared to leave them or had their child by 'deception'.

Naturally the male politicians would prefer that the fathers paid some money for their kids, rather than use the public money- and fair enough.

Of course, the separated/ divorced men of today feel very hard done by this CSA.
How dare they make them financially support their own children!

So now these men are blaming the women for the Government's expectation of paying for their own children.

I looked up the CSA site- and there were male employees named there, so I guess it is not all run by these 'feminazis', as we are led to believe by some aggressive males on this forum.

It is time the CSA cracked down even harder on some of these fathers.

I'll not comment on those 2 posts unless someone can inform me what the last 2 antiseptic posts mean. Anyone knows? It seems straight talk is now not forthcoming from antiseptic. I don't know why.

Antiseptic if you are "really" interested in discussion, how about talking straight instead of in riddles.

Maybe a class action against the CSA is a good idea

--

well now, there is the CLEAR indication benz is "driving under influence" of the govt, most probably via the CSA Top Gun Mr Reithmuller [aka Reithmuller FM, or Rotweiller and author of The Guide].

benz would not know but his minders know that relief from such as CSA is not done by a class action, but for sure that's what the blokes THOUGHT they got when they passed around the hat for Luton & Lessels in the High Court.

Of course what they DID get was just another money spinner for the lawyers with not one legal question asked of HCA [so not one legal answer]

"... and so it goes, goes round again, and now and then we wonder where the SMART men are"

I cover Red Herrings [perceived bias, suicide, gender issues] in Chapter 2 of book "Chewing the Rag" but I too must be a tart for money so if you want my answer benz you will need to BUY the book [albeit your mate Conan pirated it, so you are but pissing into the wind here]

Benq:"You know, I repeat **KNOW**, that those CSA death figures refer only to cases discharged due to the death of the male or female payer. This in NO WAY refers only to suicide by paying fathers. Statistically about this number of discharges due to death would happen every year (there's thousands of ways people die - - - - it's not just suicide). You display a deep disrespect to those people (male and female) who have genuinely committed suicide over childcare matters by misrepresenting death figures with the implication that the discharges are due to suicide"

Benq (to R0bert, earlier):"I have no stake."

Riiight....

BTW, thanks for confirming that you know about the suicide figures. I knew you could do it. How many of those suicides...erm, sorry "discharges"... are at your door, Judith?

I say:"My first experience with the Agency involved the Agency behaving badly"

You say: "That's because you're unpleasant".

Right...

I say:"There are many reports from many men who all say similar things about the way the Agency behaves"

You say:"That's because you're unpleasant"

Right...

Is there any bad behaviour from the Agency that you think isn't justified on the grounds that those being badly treated failed to say "thank you for treating me so badly, can I have another kicking please?"?

Thought not...

You must have got a nasty shellacking, Judith. No doubt it's because of your bad attitude and aggression (and your lack of competence for getting caught out so often). One thing we know for sure, it's not because of your bias against fathers, since that's the only thing that's kept you there.

Never mind, the job will be internalised soon and you can see if you're able to make a living outside the sheltered workshop. I don't think much of your chances.

By the way, Judith, when I put in my CDDA claim, guess who's going to be named as the primary offender?

Here's a clue: her initials are JW...

Why won't the Brisbane office deal with my matter any more Judith? Why is it that my matter is now being "handled" from Canberra, Judith? Could it be that you screwed it so badly and your friends up here in Brisbane were so keen to protect you (how's Angela going these days at the CP League; have they woken up that they bought a dud yet?) that they've had it taken out of their hands?

Last meeting I had, the chap was very keen to make sure that he got on the record that he doesn't know you or Nigel (or Angela). He was also keen to distance the current State Manager, Lorna Andrews, from any association with you or your work. Why do you think that is, Judith? A bit on the nose, are you? Lorna was appointed under Matt Miller and she's run a mile from your mess since day 1, hasn't she?

Still, it's probably all 'cos I'm unpleasant, wouldn't you say?

benq: <"Could someone please interpret for me what antiseptic just wrote.">

Dear Benq, One can only speculate really, but I notice that Antiseptic is addressing posts to (seems to be you) as "Judy" etc. and my interpretation would include:

1. You have been effective - it is incomprehensible to Antiseptic and some others that a male poster would challenge the misinformation that has been posted about the CSA. therefore you *must* be a nasty female.

2. Antiseptic is very important, therefore he has come to the conclusion that some person he has antagonized at the CSA is now in danger of losing their job or being disciplined in some way. That person has now taken on an online ID (that would be you) to seek revenge on him (by clarifying some misinformation with annoying facts).

People with clinical experience couldn't help but suspect that we're seeing a manifestation of narcissistic personality disorder and/or paranoid psychosis or something in that spectrum - possibly induced but at least aggravated by drug use (which would explain why it waxes and wanes in intensity).

Suze - I looked up the staffing of the CSA and about 1 in 3 of employees in the lowest classification are male. In the higher classifications the distribution is about 50/50.

Antiseptic: Managers etc at higher levels have a responsibility to the public and to clients, as does any public servant.

They also have a responsibility and duty of care to employees; including doing what they can to provide a safe working environment and protecting them from abuse.

A worker can also request that a case be passed to a higher manager for greater scrutiny during the process, to ensure personal protection from malicious nonsense.

The higher managers don't need to know the workers or the client and are often chosen for the task because they don't, to help ensure procedural fairness.

Pynchme, thanks for that clarification of antiseptic's latest posts. Excuse me, I now just can't help myself ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !

Does he "really" think I'm a CSA plant who registered here specifically in order to get him? That couldn't possibly be true that he actually believes that. Surely, he's just being his usual sarcastic self when he's losing the argument, "pretending" in a sarcastic way that I'm this Judith person.

But you say he actually believes it? If that's the case he's one seriously dysfunctional dude. I've noticed he's now abandoned any semblance of rational debate, at least with me: Speaks for itself.

I just thought I'd add one more thing. I now invite, and give permission, to the owner of this website Mr Young, to look up my ISP address and trace the origins. Ya'll will find I live in **CENTRAL AUSTRALIA** in one of the most isolated places on the planet.

But then, I guess our poor little antiseptic would claim he has knowledge that I commute daily by jet to my CSA job in a major city (I think he mentioned Brisbane in one of his posts). Ha ha ha!

A message to Mr Young, the owner of this site:I just thought of something else again, this time it's a bit more important and serious.

Antiseptic has seemingly named a CSA employee "Judith" and "JW", from the Brisbane CSA he claims. He says she is me and implies this person is here to go after him.

Does antiseptic's claim have legal repercussions for this site? I don't know whether it's important enough, to report the relevant posts by antiseptic - - - - but I thought I'd mention it here first, just to bring it to your initial attention.

I'm no legal man, and I assume no laws have been broken, but like I said I'm letting you know of the claims just to be sure.

benq: I know; it's a scream.

I agree though with anyone who claims that any bureaucracy is maddening, but more because of the impersonal nature of their dealings rather than because they single people out.

All of us at some time experience the same - stupid recorded messages; press 1 for this, 2 for that and 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 for other things - followed by the hash key, and then one rarely gets any useful exchange.

All of this stirring each other up with silly information (like the suicide figures) just contributes to manufactured rage that doesn't help anyone or their cause.

Antiseptic: I hope you get some resolution or peace in some way. I wish you could just move on - talk to someone not involved in this thing you've got going with the agency and get some other things going in your life that can make you happy

Antiseptic, have you told all those rabid 'feminazis' down at your local CSA that you write on OLO and that your online name is Antiseptic?

No?

Well how on earth can you think Benq 'knows' your situation and is out to get you here online?

Suzeonline, that's an excellent point. I'm surprised I didn't think of that, it's so obvious.

If a CSA person named Judith is coming here under an assumed screen name in order to get at antiseptic, how did the CSA person know that antiseptic was here, and who he was (as he doesn't use his real life name here)?

benz sez,

"Ya'll will find I live in **CENTRAL AUSTRALIA** in one of the most isolated places on the planet."

--

And what a fine gesture my little gidget that from out there, way beyond the Black Stump, that you forsake the care of your Woolies and pigs to focus your mind on the BIG issues.

ie you elevate your mind above such minor atrocities as 40 million dead in Africa from the umurikan AIDS Army, and concentrate on a poor govt agency with poor press [but heaps of taxpayer dollars to IMPROVE the press].

I bet Mr Reithmuller even bought you a satellite dish benz

After someone compared me to a racist on this topic, I then announced in this thread that I was happy to take bets that eventually some of the nut cases here would compare me to a nazi, a fascist or a communist.

Even "I" couldn't envisage that one of 'em would compare my posts on the CSA topic to 40 million dead aids victims.

Full moon tonight Divorce Doctor?

Come on buddy, you can do better than that.

congrats benq,

It took a little worm like you, feeding off the govt teat, to divert me from my www.agepensionsolutions.com work back to NOT rejecting [with apologies] the latest inquiry from a CSA victim.

So tell your mentor Rotweiller FM that The Doc is Back and is SERIOUS, and is "A Cumin at Ya Agin", at a court near you.

Hmm, you're not a very good communicator are you DD.

You'll need to do better than garbled language, talking in riddles and non existent syntax. That is, if you're serious about 2 way communication (which I doubt very much).

Care to repeat what you just wrote? This time in English maybe?

If you can't talk straight, then why bother?

I reasonably suspect I am being baited by a person keen to take a free kick at a stranger, to satisfy their desire to exercise moral superiority and play the devils' advocate. Its something I should be more accepting of, as I would mercilessly return the favour should there be a thread about big girls with hairy legs and bad breath...

Now, 2 points that have been raised which I feel have been distorted to support a pre-existing set of prejudices. "Most kids live with their mother and I have no issue with that" does not mean I wish to have no further contact or input into their upbringing, it means I could imagine how they would prefer to live with their mother (especially at a young age) and that it is about what is best for the children not the squabble between parents.

"Why wouldnt you want to use your degree to provide resources to your children" (sorry I cant remember the exact wording), Misses my point entirely. If I gave the CSA $1000 per week, my children and ex's will get none of this money. It goes into consolidated revenue, not to the mother or children. I guess it is like this because if it wasnt, I'd just pay it each week and she'd just pop it straight back in my bank.
It is purely an option of paying %75 tax, and if you decline that option you're labelled a "deadbeat dad". If you take that option up, you will be lucky to be able to pay your rent each week let alone provide something for the children's upbringing.

I dont suggest it would be any better if it was run by a bunch of 40-something men, and I believe most of the women that are currently running the show are genuine in their motivations (even if a little oblivious to their own lack of objectivity).

benq,

you are just so new to all this it is hard to know how to explain.

but the term Cash for Comment was coined about 15 years back after John Laws was caught taking bribes from [inter alia] The Banks to give them better press to overcome the fact they were "on the nose".

everyone got a slap on the wrist with a wet tram ticket and it was said tut tut those commercial things like banks really should make for better example, especially as the kiddies use banks and have piggy banks etc.

what is not generally known however is that a certain govt dept was in there with the banks from day one AND it was none other than the CSA.

So 15 years later the CSA is still handing out the cash to droogs like you to give them better press.

It's just the way it is but it really smells

DD wrote, "The CSA is still handing out the cash to droogs like you to give them better press".

Gee DD, let's see now - - - - - according to DD dozens of thousands of "good" fathers have committed suicide because of CSA "illegality" since the CSA started in 1988, and according to DD my posts need comparing to 40 million dead aids victims, and according to DD I am in receipt of money from the CSA for the purpose of giving the CSA good publicity, and according to DD I'm a "droog". Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

DD, was it a full moon for you tonight again? If you really want to be taken seriously (I'm sure you don't) then you have to actually **COMMUNICATE**. I realise communicating effectively is something beyond you, so maybe you should seek assistance in this regard.

What's happened to antiseptic?

Maybe he's been in court getting screwed by those awful, horrible women that are all out to "get" him. Ha ha.

Yeah, Anti *must* be important.

There is no way that the sinecured employees of the CSA would actually correct an inaccuracy if he wasn't, huh?

*that's* the sort of public servants we all respect isn't it?

The sort that will not fix an error of arithmetic *just* because the complainant was not nice about it. Their own honesty be damned.

Well how about this: The next time a public servant is as nice to me about his/her error as I as a purely commercial entity must be about my own, I'll acknowledge it. If the the Public servant reserves the right to not act honestly *just* because I wasn't sweet as pie about it (oh thank you for your stuffup, wihich costs me but for you is value neutral), I'll try and remember the fact. Or record it.

In the meantime, Anti has detailed the nature of the CSA's error online.

The details match the general case criticised by the Ombudsman two or three years ago.

Why have all similar cases (including Anti's) not been fixed?

Is it because the CSA stuffed up? Oh dear. Can't just *fix* it could they, like good servants?

Perhaps the CSA is self-serving?
Perhaps just incompetant?
Perhaps they lack the legal expertise to interpret the Ombudsman's decision?

Yes, yes, we know the Ombudsman is not a judge, but the O's office tries to anticipate a court's decision. Ignoring the applicability to other cases is *not* "good faith".

Suffice to say that I think that the established history of arithmetic and accounting poor practice described by the ombudsman constitutes a reasonable basis for refusing to accept the CSA as competent to excute it's supposed authority until all outstanding cases of the types described by the ombudsman have been corrected.

Rusty

Does anyone else think Antiseptic has either been arrested or committed suicide?

I hope not. I think the forum is poorer for his absence.

I just wish some characters as interesting and entertaining as Antiseptic, Col Rouge or the Pied Piper were still around on OLO.

It seems to me OLO has turned from a place with heated debate and comical banter to one where a bunch of old codgers bang on about recipes and the good 'ol days and what they like to do around the house.

I'll keep checking in now and again to see if OLO improves again.

Hoully,

I am personnaly certain he is free and happy, and has CSA totally flummoxed to boot.

Benq says (and makes veiled threats at OLO) a lot for someone who has not followed Anti's posts.

Rusty.