Some time ago a thread discussing the discriminatory treatment of fathers by the CSA was derailed by a couple of the usual suspects demanding "proof".

Will the Ombudsman's findings do?

There was a report in the Fairfax press this morning http://www.smh.com.au/national/fathers-stereotyped-by-child-support-agency-20100825-13s89.html which says: "In a report that might not be well received by some single mothers, the acting Ombudsman, Ron Brent, found that the Child Support Agency had at times been unduly influenced by stereotypes about fathers not meeting their obligations."

For those interested, I looked up the report http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/media-releases/show/127. It said:"The CSA has prioritised cases that increase child support liabilities, whereas their advertising suggested targeting both payer and payee parents – that is, that they would investigate both those parents suspected of understating their incomes in order to pay less and those understating their incomes to receive more,’ said Mr Brent.

In practice, the majority of investigations targeted only those suspected of paying too little. He suggested that the CSA change its case selection procedures, to be more even-handed in its approach to the two parties.

‘It is also important that investigations are carried out with sensitivity and without implying that all investigated parents are trying to avoid child support obligations,’ Mr Brent said."

The report was the result of an "own-motion" investigation by the Ombudsman's office and the CSA has accepted the findings...

The CSA are evil parasites that feed on broken families and thrive on animosity. If one is unlucky enough to have more than one ex, the blatant effort at causing friction between separated parents is really no good. One ex I can deal with reasonably, the other less so. The CSA sends me demanding letters using the reasonable ones' name, in the hope I fall for it and abuse her, so they can join the fun. They dont actually pass any of the money to my ex's or children, and arent interested in how or when I might be able to visit my children. I think if I ever was going to pull the pin, I'd do it very publicly and very messily on their doorstep. If enough people did just that, maybe things would change.

Hahaha,

I thought of you, dear old anti, when I read that this morning.

I thought you'd like the quote...

'He also said that up until recently, government policy had in fact encouraged the agency to focus on fathers rather than mothers.'

You stopped posting for ages after that 'derailed' thread. What happened?

PS: I eagerly await the response form the anti-bitter-menz-brigade with much enthusiasm, but I fear faced with the egg on their face, it will not be forthcoming.

PatTheBogan,

I can only sympathise. What is it about dealing with a bureaucracy that is so maddening. I have had similar fantasies about the Australian Passport office recently after attempting to appease them and their photo regulations.

I can only marvel that such action doesn't happen more often. If the stakes were higher and it was to do with my kids and not a stupid passport I think I'd abandon that side of me that says 'It's a bit crazy to end your life and splatter blood all over the place over this.'

Houellebecq:"You stopped posting for ages after that 'derailed' thread. What happened?"

I had lots to do,including filing my claim for Compensation for Damages due to Defective Administration.

You may read about that in the papers, too.

For a government agency those are quite serious findings, reflecting as they do, on senior management decisions. One wonders what the agency's audit committee was up to, or the auditors, that the control framework was weak enough to allow such skewing of management direction and entrenching of administrative and policy bias.

There is also the implication that The Hon Chris Bowen MP, Minister for Human Services was aware, or at least should have been aware of the deficiencies. After all, the agency, the minister and his electoral office all would have received complaints. What happened to them?

This is a far more serious issue than insulation and unlike insulation, reflects directly on the responsible Minister.