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.

Cornflower:"the control framework was weak enough to allow such skewing of management direction and entrenching of administrative and policy bias. "

The CSA's former National Compliance Manager, Angela Tillmanns, who is now the CEO of the CP League of Qld, was "responsible for developing strategies and policies to ensure separated parents pay the right amount" according to her autobiographical introduction to CP League members in the Autumn 2008 edition of the League's newsletter. It is those "strategies and policies" of which the Ombudsman is most scathing and the CSA is most keen to distance itself from in its response to the report. Tillmanns notably said that she wanted separated fathers to live in fear that the next phone call was from the CSA. Does anyone else think that she is an unsuitable person to be occupying the CEO's chair at the CP League of Qld?

Not only Tillmanns but Matt Miller, the former General Manager of the Agency as well as a series of Ministers, most notably Joe Hockey, but also Jocelyn Newman, Ian Campbell, Chris Ellison, Joe Ludwig and Chris Bowen ahve allowed this disgrace to continue unchecked.

I have been telling the Agency about the specific flaws addressed by the Ombudsman since 2003. Their response has been to try to bully me into compliance. Not once,until just a week or two ago, have I received any kind of apology or acknowledgement of wrong-doing.

For those who dont know, there was a hearing in the Federal Court of Appeal in Sydney on Monday and the High Court Luten decision may well now be disregarded as the CSA has used this case in all attempts to question the legislation and defend ones self from the Registrar of the CSA when doing the assessment.
The legislation prior to 2001 and after 2001 may well be struck out due to the money being taken by force, deemed a tax on unjust terms.
Prior to 2001 the Tax Commissioner wore both hats for the CSAC Registrar and the Tax Commissioner so that they could set around the law. Luten was a bogus decision and Kirby was responsible for that scamm.
What has now been established is that the Tax File Number has been accessed and used by the Registrar of the CSA without the concent of the paying parent for the purposes of creating the correct assessment.
If the assessment based on the TFN income is correct you have no recorse to the courts, but they have to get your permission to get the TFN and use it for that purpose. If you are not a TAX PAYER (person with a TFN) they cant have any assessment except nill.
A transcript of the hearing will be available in a day or two when the appliciant has it provided.

Emotive subject, i am a single parent and have basically given up any hope of ever seeing a decent payment from their mother. She left leaving the children with me, as she does not work and only receives a social security payment i see a very token payment per month. Despite her new partner being on a good wage what is his is not hers even though he supports her.
In the end i don't care, don't want the argument and bad blood, i am able to support my family well with work and the generous help that the government offers parents.

nairbe, well said.

One of the points that Antiseptic opens with is very emotive.

A number of us were attacked for not being able to prove that our experience with CSA were marked by bias against us in a recent thread. Despite being the prime carer I've been accused of trying to get out of paying child support on other threads (the stereotypes are pretty well entrenched in some peoples minds).

I've not tried to get child support, no way I know of doing so without getting back into conflict and pressures that neither my son or I need. I don't need to spend time or energy fretting about my ex's financial situation or choices (and I presume she is now able to largely ignore mine). It's hard enough parenting with an ex without adding CSA to the mix.

CSA is an organisation which is in my view plays a significant role in contributing to pressures on seperated parents which add to risks of child abuse. There has to be a better way of providing for kid's where the parents can't or won't take responsibility themselves.

R0bert

From the Ombudsman's report 2006-7

Start quote of case study
Mr F, the payer, complained that in the course of assessing his child support income under the ‘change of assessment’ process, the CSA included the value of the depreciation expenses claimed against his business income. This decision resulted in Mr F’s child support income being tripled and, in turn, his child support liability being increased significantly. After unsuccessfully objecting to the CSA’s decision, Mr F appealed successfully to the Federal Magistrates Court and his child support assessment was reduced.
Mr F lodged a claim with the CSA for reimbursement for his legal costs. He complained to the Ombudsman when the CSA refused the claim. In examining the CSA’s compensation decision we formed the view that, in completely disregarding the payer’s depreciation deduction as an expense and adding the full amount back as income, the CSA’s ‘change of assessment’ and objection decisions demonstrated a lack of understanding of general accounting principles. They also created a situation such that Mr F had little choice but to appeal the outcome.
End quote of case study

"Lack of understanding of general accounting principles"
Not merely practice, principles. Just what selection criteria did these people actually meet?

Rusty

RObert <" CSA is an organisation which is in my view plays a significant role in contributing to pressures on seperated parents which add to risks of child abuse. There has to be a better way of providing for kid's where the parents can't or won't take responsibility themselves."

Well said RObert. It does seem that the CSA systems are unfair on the non-custodial parent in some cases, and on the custodial parent in others.

I wonder will any of the people directly affected by the decisions of the CSA in the past or present be able to come up with ideas for a better system?

Until better ideas come up that won't leave the Government out of pocket by having to supplement the income of sole parents, when the non-custodial parent refuses to pay towards the keep of their own children, the Government will continue to use an obviously flawed CSA.

Suzeonline:"It does seem that the CSA systems are unfair on the non-custodial parent in some cases, and on the custodial parent in others."

No, the ombudsman said that the CSA is systematically unfair to fathers, especially non-custodial fathers. In case you found it too difficult to click on the link to the Ombudsman's report, I'll reproduce some more of it here.

"the CSA should not prioritise its CTP investigations on the basis of the parent’s role (i.e. payer or payee). In other words, the CSA should also investigate cases where the payee parent appears to have additional financial resources"

This is only from the abridged version of the report...

"It also created the impression that parents under CTP investigation are those who deliberately attempted to avoid their child support responsibilities. This was not borne out by the cases that we examined in our sample. The CSA’s CTP investigations include many where parents had perfectly legitimate business arrangements for taxation purposes, and the question of their motivation was usually irrelevant."

"That the CSA review its case selection methodology to ensure that the CTP process is administered in a manner that is consistent with the objects of the Assessment Act, and especially to:

give equal priority to cases where the parent with additional resources is the parent receiving child support (where the CTP process is likely to reduce the child support assessment)

give appropriate attention to the more difficult cases"

"That the CSA review the name and description of the Income Minimisers program to better reflect the nature of the cases that it actually investigates, both to reduce the possible impression of bias and to acknowledge the fact that many people subject to investigation have not actively sought to avoid their child support obligations."

Anyone who lies to substantially increase the amount of child support they receive or to substantially reduce the amount they pay should be charged with fraud.

Public servants within the CSA who zealously pursue on the basis of fraudulent information should be required to show which part of the public service act condones this, or be personally liable for the damages.

"flawed as a simple matter of arithmetic" Hee Hee

Suze.... The CSA could be improved by total elimination. The vast majority of CS is paid without their help, a clerk with a calculator on a desk in the back corner of centrelink would do as well. The Non-payers, as CSA's own efforts have demonstrated over the years, are not amenable to the CSA's thuggery, so maybe just sack the CSA and give that money directly to those who need it. The CSA would be much more accurately remunerated by the dole rather than their current income.

Rusty

Don't hold your breath for an apology from the bureaucrats or the politicians. An apology means admitting failure and that won't happen anytime soon. I had a similar experience in different circumstances and the only apology received in writing was conditional and with thinly veiled excuses.

I can imagine working at a place like the CSA would be a minefield and employees probably experience a constant tirade of abuse from deadbeat non-custodial parents who have not fulfilled their obligations to their children and abuse from custodial parents who want more from their ex-partners.

This makes it difficult for non-custodial parents who risk being tarred with the same brush but by no means is an excuse for discriminatory behaviour. In fact public servants are trained to remain impartial and non-judgemental and this should always be observed even in difficult circumstances.

The Ombudsman's report will hopefully ensure that there are fairer arrangements now in regard to child support, financial assessments and access issues.

Suzie I have my doubts that CSA actually achieves very much (if anything) in financial terms. A lot of the marketing spin ignores the fact that the bulk of parents do take responsibility for their children. The totals they so happily tout include all the money which would have gone to support kid's anyway and ignore the negative impact of having a heavy handed and biased government bureaucracy involved.

The process gets peoples backs up and many will give less when forced to than if done from their own determination of what's reasonable.

I suspect that the taxpayer is footing a bigger bill now than if the whole thing was dropped. I can't prove that but it's my impression.

If people are determined to have the government involved then they should work to break the financial ties between parents, that just becomes an ongoing source of conflict and makes it really difficult for people to move on.

People who already may have reason not to like each other and who need to cooperate in the raising of children spend years being impacted by the life choices of the other over which they have no control. People who's relationship's did not work because of financial incompatibilities find themselves stuck in the same issues for many years.

Perhaps have everyone pay into a pool based on the cost of raising children and their income then draw from that pool to support the costs of raising the kid's. Not my preferred option because it's still an expensive government department to administer it but I doubt that dropping the whole thing would work politically.

R0bert

Antiseptic

Can I draw your attention to the report of the government's own auditor, the ANAO:

ANAO Audit Report No.46 2009–10
Child Support Reforms: Building a Better Child Support Agency

You should also look at the large grants previously given to the CSA for improvement projects, specifically because of the problems and complaints received over the years.

This report on the department's site will be of interest (excerpt given below) and the previously cited ANAO report is a follow-up:

http://www.csa.gov.au/media/building-a-better-csa.aspx
"'Building a Better Child Support Agency' Reforms Package
Released: 18 February 2008

This media backgrounder is intended as a tool to assist journalists in understanding service delivery and legislative issues relating to child support.

.........

In 2005, the Government committed to investing $150 million over four years through the 'Building a Better CSA' (BBCSA) reforms package. BBCSA is a comprehensive range of initiatives designed to improve service delivery to CSA customers - 1.4 million separated parents, around 1.2 million children - as well as improved engagement with stakeholders and the community.

An implementation plan was developed and was framed against three major service delivery objectives.

1. Develop a customer-focused approach to service delivery, characterised by more accessible, consistent, responsive, professional, accountable and empathetic interactions with customers (funding $106 million)
2. Develop a customer-focused organisational culture that eliminates bias and community perceptions of the need for greater procedural fairness in customer outcomes (funding $23 million)
3. Increase proactive engagement with parents and stakeholders to provide a better understanding of their rights, responsibilities and options under the child support system, and the role of CSA within the family law system (funding $22 million)"

Customer feedback indicates BBCSA is well on its way to achieving its goals."

Not so, it now seems.

contd.

The question remains, what was the role department's audit committee and its auditors? What about governance? What about risk analysis?

You are angry about the treatment of fathers and you should be. As a citizen I find it completely outrageous and indefensible that despite the millions that have been poured into trying to improve governance, accountability, transparency and value for money over decades (not to mention the money given to the CSA for improvements) such shabby management and lack of governance is still present in this department and seemingly no one has been made accountable.

You should draft a letter and send it by snail mail (they don't read email) to ALL members of the new parliament asking what will be done to make decision makers responsible and accountable for the continuing mismanagement and wastage of public funds.

benk:"Anyone who lies to substantially increase the amount of child support they receive or to substantially reduce the amount they pay should be charged with fraud."

Nice theory, but do I want the mother of my children charged with fraud and potentially being unable to continue in her career? Is that good for the kids?

If the CSA's involvement leads some people to act fraudulently, then don't involve the CSA in the first place.

Pelican:"Don't hold your breath for an apology from the bureaucrats or the politicians"

I don't need to, I've already got one, but I've had to take an awfully large drop in living standard as well as lost business opportunites and other consequences as well as spend a great deal of my time over many years fighting this disgraceful organisation.

Pelican:"I can imagine working at a place like the CSA would be a minefield "

I disagree. The law is pretty straightforward, it's the policy directions set by the National Executive and rubber-stamped by the succession of third-raters put in as Minister that have caused the problem. The culture of corruption and high-handed application of coercive powers aimed exclusively at fathers is a product of the ideological bias of those in charge, as well as a grossly incompetent quality assurance process. I'm a pretty easy-going bloke, but the casual misuse of power I have experienced from the CSA got my back up very badly. I want those individual senior bureaucrats to be held to individual account.

R0bert, a non-discriminatory levy could be applied to pay for the public good that is represented by the proper care of subsequent generations. Let the ATO administer collections as they do now for other taxes and levies and have Centrelink administer it in their normal way. The CSA is redundant and staffed by incompetents and ideologues. There are requirements under the Public Service Act that members of the APS act with due diligence to ensure that their substantive actions are ethical, fair, transparent, accurate and do not cause disadvantage. The CSA fails to fulfil these obligations systematically.

[cont]

Cornflower, thanks for that link to the Building a Better CSA guff. While it shows how little attention the CSA pay to their own propaganda, it was itself a mere effort at window-dressing the woeful state the Agency was allowed to attain under Catherine Argall and Sheila Bird, which culminated in the sacking of huge numbers of staff for accessing CSA files for either their own ex's case or for friends.

The rot was set a long way into the core of this particular apple a long time before Matt Miller was hired from Fair Trading Queensland to try to turn it all into sweet-smelling cider. That he failed is no real surprise. It must have been like walkng through molasses to try to effect change in such a deeply-flawed organisation, where so many had built their careers on the fact that they never had to justify anything they did and so much of what they did consisted of stitching men up as a matter of course.

This is going to run a long way yet, Cornflower. I'll do as you suggest in writing, I think.

Antiseptic,
Good luck with trying to reform a government department. I feel for you with the pain these people have clearly caused you. I simply gave up without much effort as i had three children to raise and the oldest has a disability so my personal energy could only stretch so far and the CSA just didn't matter enough.
I know i am on the other end of the spectrum than your self but with the risk of sounding moralistic (and anyone that reads my post you know i am no moralist) I really think that our community and parents in general need to take the act of becoming a parent much more seriously. Children are not a right nor a financial gain. Enough baby bonuses big PPS payments and excuses to shove our kids into child care so my career dosen't suffer. tough for the liberationists if it costs children a family and stable development. It is all a reflection of the selfish greed that has come to represent the ME generation.

Dear Antiseptic,

I don't know if this will help - however
I came across the following website:

http://www.mensrights.com.au/

There's a few other links on the website that
may also be of interest.

nairbe:"I simply gave up without much effort as i had three children to raise and the oldest has a disability so my personal energy could only stretch so far and the CSA just didn't matter enough."

If the CSA had simply done the minimum needed to produce a fair, accurate assessment instead of allowing themselves to be used as a weapon by my ex then I would have done the same. I did do the same for the first 4 years I had to deal with them, putting up with the petty dishonesties and the constant implication that I was an inadequate parent. The very first time I spoke to the Agency, I asked why the assessment notice I had received was backdated to a month before we separated and instead of an answer I got "there's nothing I can do about it now, you'll have to go to Court if you want it changed". When I said that doesn't seem reasonable I got "look, we know what you're about, just pay up. Don't you care about your kids?" When I tried to say that I had been paying the ex all along, I was told "no you haven't, I've got your file in front of me and it doesn't say anything about that".

Since this was only a month or so after we separated, I let it all slide and allowed myself to be bullied into shutting up, but it just got worse. The ex kept filing Change of Assessment applications, usually at the same time as she filed the next Court application seeking greater custody and the CSA just kept accepting them, despite nothing having changed in either of our circumstances. Each time I had to provide all of my financial records to them and submit to an interrogation, while the ex was not required to do anything at all except say "I think he's able to earn more than he is" while she sat on her backside drawing a Government benefit, living in Government housing.

The final straw for me was in 2003 when the SCO, Judith Williams, who still works for the CSA, decided that I needed to be more respectful to her and made a determination that I was capable of earning 25% more than I was earning and would have to pay an assessment on that basis, which basically made me destitute. When I objected, it was rejected, with the rejection accompanied by a mathematical analysis that matched her determination, but didn't add up. My complaint about that received the response that the objection decision "contained some mathematical errors,but the assessment is valid". When I demanded copies of the notes she had used to form her determination, I got a letter from Angela Tillmanns (then Qld State Manager, now CEO of the CP League) telling me that no notes need be taken during CoA meetings "since the SCO will make the decision immediately".

"Valid" is an important word. The Act said words to the effect that failing to comply with any of the provisions of the Act does not render a decision invalid. In other words "we don't have to get it right".

I refused to pay based on that assessment and I have refused to cooperate with the CSA since then. That has forced me into self-employment,since they will immediately take any wages or salary I earn, as well as any funds in bank accounts, also freezing the account. I have been living in ad hoc accommodation in my work premises since 2005, because without a reliable bank account I cannot rent a residential property. My ex continues to live in Government housing, although she now earns nearly $80,000 a year as a social worker, no doubt "assisting" others to milk the system.

I estimate that the actions of the CSA have cost me at least $200,000 in lost earnings and foregone opportunities and have caused me enormous stess. I intend to make them pay every cent.

So how can "valid even if incorrect" be enforced?

Even allowing that it may be *intended* to enable enforcement of (duly and diligently documented) assessments in the face of petty and obfuscatory objections, how can a duly inducted public servant be regarded as acting with due diligence if the amount is substantially incorrect? Taking intrusive action without due diligence is not permitted to public servants, no matter how poorly written the act they administer. Their duty was to inform the minister of the inadequacy of the act, not to regard it as a license to go on a witch hunt.

Rusty

Rusty Catheter:"how can "valid even if incorrect" be enforced?"

The Ombudsman's report clearly shows that it can't be if enforced through the courts which is why the CSA have always gone for the extra-judicial approach. One CSA person was horrified when I suggested that they were welcome to take me to Court to recover what they claim. "But that would be litigation!!" he exclaimed. Yes it would and it would fail, whereas taking money from people like thieves in the night leaves them with no resources and thus no way to seek redress.

It's been a deliberate policy of the Agency for years. If any other organisation tried it on they'd be ruined.

Anti

From what you are saying, they can take a percentage of what you theoretically could be earning, not your actual income. That seems to be a system almost designed to produce judgments based on guesswork.

benk:"That seems to be a system almost designed to produce judgments based on guesswork."

Got it in one. When you combine that with a complete unwillingness to be accountable and the clear cultural bias against fathers within the organisation it's obvious what is going to happen.

There are a group of contract Senior Case Offices whose role it is to do these Change of Assessment determinations. Their KPIs for additional payments under their contract include the amount of additional money they can assess as being payable. In other words, they have a personal interest in coming to a determination that more is payable. They are nothing but mercenaries paid to extort money from fathers, as the Ombudsman makes clear.

The Agency is in the throes of internalising those positions, so the likes of Williams may have to find actual work to do. They'll have to do some courses in Law and basic accounting first.

It's also interesting that the Ombudsman made his recomendation about CSA staff properly identifying themselves. I've been making the same point for the past 7 years to them, after they started giving nothing but first names.

Antiseptic,
As i said i truly do wish you the best in your fight with CSA.
My position is very different because i am the custodian of the children. My ex is remarried and they seem to be doing well enough but how can you really know. As they don't use her husbands income as part of the assessment i get zip. I don't push as the only contact i had with CSA was 8 years ago when i became a sole parent and they were not in a hurry to believe me that i was the custodian then. It took a long time to get them to accept this so i leave it alone or they will put DOCS on me and for those in NSW we know that DOCS attack the innocent as they can not get any success with those that need intervention.

I've just been looking over that earlier thread that I mentioned. I hadn't realised that a couple of the less intellectually-capable posters, including pynchme, Suzeonline and Benq had continued the thread after I left, accusing me of everything from mental illness to delusions of grandeur.

Benq said:"Maybe he's been in court getting screwed by those awful, horrible women that are all out to "get" him. Ha ha." No, but he'll soon be in Court screwing all those awful, horrible women who were all out to "get" me. Would you like an invitation?

I note that none of those posters have bothered to turn up to this thread except Suzie, who showed yet again why the nursing "profession" is required to defer to doctors when the issue becomes more complex than sponge baths. Injected anyone's spine with chlorhexidine lately, Suzie?

And where is Benq/JW? S/he said:"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".

We're waiting...

What of Pynchme? She said:"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 "

You'd best get on to the Ombudsman's office and tell them that Mr Brent is suffering from NPD and/or paranopid psychosis. I'm sure they'll give your advice all the attention it deserves.

Never mind, you can console yourself with the thought that noone can "prove" (yet) that the undue rate of suicide among the cohort of men who the CSA targets for special attention is due to that special attention. After all, "how many is "many?".

I seem to recall you claim to be involved on a professional level "counselling" men. I strongly recommend you consider another career - you're obviously quite unsuited to the current one, which one would presume demands some professional, unbiased capacity to analyse data presented. Perhaps a cleaning job would be more your "thing"?

nairbe:"My position is very different because i am the custodian of the children."

I have 50:50 shared care of my children, but over the past year or so my daughter has preferred to live mostly with Mum, because the Housing Commission house she lives in is nicer than the accommodation I can offer. Fair enough, I don't blame her for that, but I do blame the CSA for putting me into the financial position that has brought that about. My son continues to live with me about half the time.

What most irritates me about the whole situation is that I have been trying very hard to get this mess sorted out. The ex, however, knows that she need do nothing at all and the CSA will continue to harass me, so she refuses to even discuss the subject. Over the past 12 months I have sent her no less than 16 requests to sit down and discuss the matters extant and I have received not one reply. In the same period, the CSA has garnished my bank account twice and made serious threats over the phone, including one to falsify my file if I did not "cooperate". That one will be subject to a Federal Police complaint if I do not get a satisfactory response to my complaint to Geoff Mutton, the Chief Operating Officer.

I have told them on several occasions that I am perfectly willing to pay a correct amount. I have told them what I believe such an amount to be. I have received no response whatever to any of those letters, except another abusive phone call and garnishment order.

I'm now in the position where my only option is to take the ex to court to seek a resolution. Yet more wasted money that could be used to support the kids, not to mention the time I will have to spend away from my business.

You're very wise to stay away from the CSA. The organisation is badly broken.

The entire child support sytem could be simplified if they would just evaluate each and every child as 'equal'.

Why does it matter how much one earns?

I have said this many times that a 'child' is a 'child' and if a set amout per week were determined as per the 'common needs' of the child, denending on thier age, many problems would be solved.

Sure, some kids life styles would improve, while others would deteriate, but hey, that's what happens when two people bring a child/children into the world then separate.

All kids should be treated as equal. After all, they never chose to be born.

Rehctub:"The entire child support sytem could be simplified if they would just evaluate each and every child as 'equal'.

Why does it matter how much one earns?"

That is why I have proposed the introduction of an ATO-administered levy on all taxpayers and a Centrelink-administered endowment on children. Kids cost a certain minimal amount. By making that payable as a tax/benefit it breaks the direct link between parents that causes so much of the trouble and it spread the load. An average of $5 per week per taxpayer would replace the entire sum that is currently transferred, according to the CSA. It would also get rid of the $500million or more that is spent on the CSA annually. The additional amounts that are spent are then entirely up to the parents,as they would be if the family was intact.

Antiseptic, While I agree with you in principle, it should not be the tax payer who contributes to this fund, rather, it should be each and every parent of a separated child who pay for this equally, dependent on the number of children they have fathered/mothered and the childrens age.

Why on earth should joe blogg, the tax payer fork out for something he/she did not cause.

I say to all separated parents with kids, your kids, your relationship, your mess. You lot clean it up.

BTW, I have two now adult children and my wife and I are still married after 25 years, some of which have been very tough.

My wife and I have done our bit and look forward to supporting our grand kids one day, not yours.

[Deleted for excessive use of capitals].

Rusty Catheter:"how can "valid even if incorrect" be enforced?"

Because you have authorised it by allowing them to use your TFN and access the taxableincome on the ATO Data base.
The following is an extract from the Federal Court of Appeal hearing in Monday last week.
Appellant:
Well, the assessment went on. In 2001, when the legislation changed, the evidence given – and one of my exhibits that I won’t go to at this point in time – was that it was just a matter of course that the registrar just continued to use the ATO database to bypass sections 150D and 16OC of the Child Support Assessment Act and to simply, what they said was, to rely on 150D to take the tax file numbers to impose the assessment. Now that’s an administrative point. Now, effectively, what they’ve done is, they’ve gone, we’ve got your tax file number, we know your income, here’s your assessment, sorry, you have no grounds to take it to court because we have your income right. Now, on that basis, assessments continue to be imposed, new assessments, year by year. Now my friends here (AGS)jumped up and down at the beginning from this point, saying it’s irrelevant, tax file numbers have nothing to do with anything.
I think they mentioned about 230 times in the statute that the basis of making an assessment its taxable income which is accessed from use of tax file number, but they’re saying it’s irrelevant. Now, it’s entirely relevant. The tax file numbers have been misused. They haven’t learnt their lesson. They have simply continued on to abuse the scheme and use it as a tax. instead of how it’s intended, as an Act to provide support for children. And taking the tax file numbers of everybody – and my friend’s submission was, although 8WD prohibits the Commissioner of Taxation, the Superannuation Commissioner, accountants, banks, employers, the CEO of Centrelink from taking tax file numbers, the registrar can just take them.

A previous Federal Court Justice has already stated that they cant access them with out consent.
JJ

Anti
My reference to minefields refers to the difficult job of CSA employees but there is obviously room for improvement in the policies and guidelines.

I am not excusing any mismanagement on the part of CSA but pointing out that these employees deal with both sides of a relationship and must face abuse every day from non-custodial parents not wishing to be parted from their income and custodial parents who want more money from their ex-partners, both sides being unhappy with their lot or obligations.

Most people I know who pay child support don't have any difficulty and most times any anomalies or disputes have been sorted out to mutual satisfaction. Of course there is always capacity for human error which is why it is important to ensure the guidelines are clear.

A friend of mine got very little from her ex-husband in the way of child support, even his parents were disappointed with their son's lack of duty of care to his kids. He started his own business in partnership with a friend and was very good at hiding income but managed to buy his kids playstations for Christmas to curry favour but not enough to help feed, clothe or pay for medical expenses which were high due to a problem with one of the kids. He also managed to go on OS holidays with his new girlfriend and put her through college. Despite all this, my friend never impeded access to his kids but as things went, he did not wish to meet with them all that often as it wrinkled his new lifestyle.

Honour is genderless.

Antiseptic <" That is why I have proposed the introduction of an ATO-administered levy on all taxpayers and a Centrelink-administered endowment on children."

Would this tax 'levy' payment be means tested Antiseptic?
No tax office is going to tax the rest of the tax-payers to pay for the failed relationships of a few couples who are unable to do the right thing by their kids unless forced to.

Would we be penalizing those broken relationships who could work out their own financial arrangements without the need for a big stick from the CSA?

If it was means tested, it would lead back to the same financial squabbles plaguing the family courts now wouldn't it? Some partners would again hide their true income again in order to get the largest tax-levy provided payments they could.

No, I think that the CSA should attempt to tighten up some of the rules and have more severe consequences for fraud when trying to either get more money, or avoid paying more money for their kids.

James J,

As you say you were told, and as the ombudsman has found, giving your tax file number is not consent to unjust decisions, only to duly documented,, duly authorised, transparent and fair ones.

Public servants are not allowed to use under circumstances their intrusive powers unless these criteria, and others have been met.

It is illegal for them to attempt it, it is illegal for them to succeed at it.

Therefore, since it is illegal for a public servant to take these actions, it cannot be enforced, not just by a court, but by them.

The misuse of these powers is therefore a personal decision of the public servants involved, they or their undocumented supervisors are personally responsible for taking the law and it's interpretation into their own hands.

Rusty.

Antiseptic, from what you've written in this thread I can easily understand why you've got it in for the CSA. It sounds like you've been appallingly treated.

However, I don't see the necessary logical connection with the obvious antipathy towards women in general that you've expressed at OLO. While your ex and most of the public servants you've named are female, the clearly woeful procedures and policies you've described would have been approved by senior management who are still mostly men, and ultimately assented to by governement, which is still mostly men.

Assuming you're ultimately successful in your court action (with which I wish you well), do you think you'll be able to lose the attitude to women which is clearly one expression of your unhappiness?

Serious findings of poor administration have been made both by the Ombudsman and the Australian National Audit Office. Neither office is prone to making frivolous findings or recommendations. It is a fact that large sums of public money were allocated to correcting systemic faults that have been identified previously and the promised change has not eventuated.

The debate should be turning around the very serious issues of poor governance, especially the failure of the audit committee, its risk analysis, treatments and monitoring, and the auditors. Taking the last first, what findings and recommendations were there from internal auditors reports and what action did management take if any?

Over the last two decades and more, very large sums have been committed to improvements to ensure transparency of decisions, FOI and accountability, especially financial accountability and value for money. How is it possible that a government agency can continue to lurch along making the very obvious, serious, mistakes of the CSA? Worse, its own interpretations of policy appear faulty, possibly partisan.

The government and the APS will have to go some lengths to convince the public that claimed improvements in the federal bureaucracy are worth the paper they are written on.

It is most regrettable that change is being complaint driven and even then it is grudging and short-lasting. Where is the double-edged axe?

What I should have added but forgot, is my belief that the two party system will never improve accountability.

The minority governments of the future and hopefully a three party system with a fair smattering of independents could restore some real accountability of government and its administration.

"What I should have added but forgot, is my belief that the two party system will never improve accountability. "

I agree Cornflower. The surge in popularity of the independents and minor parties reflects the disatisfaction with issues of governance and open debate about policy in numerous areas not only to do with child support.

I am not sure I support the idea of a universal tax on all Australians to take on the burden of marriage breakdown by caring for the children of divorced parents.

The system is not perfect that is for sure, and I can understand how the system hugely disadvantages non-custodial parents particularly those on lower incomes who can barely afford to house themselves and then lose overnight access due to inadequate accommodation. The same applies to custodial parents who receive no support from their Ex and struggle to make ends meet.

There is already a single parents pension to support families who find themselves in this situation as well as tax concessions and family rebates. There is also support from charities.

What about personal responbility. There could be better support services to navigate the treacherous path of the post-break up relationship, and in this area some improvements have already been made by government.

Benq

I couldn't find any direct mentions of gender either. They did, however mention that payers were more likely to be investigated than recipients.

"We concluded that the CSA policies and procedures for selecting cases prioritised cases where the CTP investigation will increase the amount of child support payable."

I would presume that most payers are male. Regardless of whether or not this is right, it seems unfair and needs fixing.

The quote comes from here; http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/files/CSA-HumanServices_Capacity-to-pay_final_abridged.pdf

However, I can now see that targeting those who use certain tactics like salary sacrificing to minimise taxable income seems fair.

[Deleted for excessive use of capitals].

Oh look, Benq's back and obviously finding it difficult to accept the changed reality that the Ombudsman's report creates for her. I'll deal with her in another post.

JamesJ:"Because you have authorised it by allowing them to use your TFN and access the taxable income on the ATO Data base."

Which may form part of the reasoning behind the Ombudsman's report.If people are not told of the consequences of volunteering the information they cannot exercise judgement in choosing to do so or not.It effectively negates any chance to act in one's own interests.

Pelican,no one is suggesting that all fathers are perfect,but not all fathers are deadbeats eithar and the CSA treats us all that way, as the Ombudsman's report makes clear. I still dispute that CSA emplyees have a difficlt job. The only difficulties they face are those the Agency creates for them with poor policies and even poorer management, as the Ombudsman makes clear.

Rehctub, I pay taxes and I pay for my children. In my taxes is a component to pay for the children of people who don't pay taxes, as well as a large component to pay for childcare, education, medical, etc for the children of middle-class families. You also contribute to those children. I'm sure you don't like it, but you don't even notice it,really. You wouldn't notice another $5 a week either, I reckon.

You said:"your kids, your relationship, your mess. You lot clean it up."

The trouble is that the CSA sticking their bib in makes it a great deal harder to "clean it up". They give women with an axe to grind a consequence-free, cost-free weapon to use at will. As I said, I've been trying to clear this particular mess up for a long time, but the CSA has been determined to have it continue, which means the ex has no incentive to do anything about it.

CJMorgan, thanks for the expression of support, but leave the crap about "hating women" out of it, eh? I acknowledge that I have some difficulty trusting women to act reasonably and rationally and my experiences have left me more than a little scared of the casual coercion that a woman can call on the State to apply with very little examination. Until this marriage ended I'd not been out of a relationship for more than a short while since my young adulthood. Since then I've not bothered, having spent the first 5 years after separation being dragged backand forth to Court every time the ex felt like it and the next 5 trying to make the CSA act reasonably, all while trying to make a dollar in the face of a great deal of interference. I resent that greatly.

I'm not interested in whether those responsible are males or females. Either way, they're a dead loss.

Benq, you say:"The "payers" are mostly males"

Absolutely correct, about 90% of CSA collect cases have a male payer.

You then say:"if they were female "

But they're not. Which means the CSA is discriminating against males. Morevoer, the Ombudsman didn't examine whether the CSA prioritised cases in which female payers were suspected of having extra "capacity to pay". My suspicion is that if he did, he'd find that the discrimination continues there as well.

How could it not, with people like benq/Judy on staff?

Let's face it, hon, no matter which way you'd like to try to spin it, your favourite organisation stinks like a bucket of prawn shells on a hot day. Never mind, you won't be there much longer.

Have a nice day,won't you?

benk:"I can now see that targeting those who use certain tactics like salary sacrificing to minimise taxable income seems fair."

As long as it occurs for both payers and payees equally, I agree. Many payee parents (women) work in the health and education sectors, or in other Govt bureaucracies, where salary sacrifice is commonly available.

Anti >>You wouldn't notice another $5 a week either, I reckon.

The key word here is 'ANOTHER'.

That's the problem, $5 is nothing, but another $5 is where the problem is.

Just remember, from the beginning of time, no child has ever wanted to be born as they are the result of two peoples actions and, it is those two people who are responsible for them, nobody else.

Now on the other hand, should someone wish to volentraily assist, then that's thier choice, but it should not be either pushed on to them, or expected.

After all, we are already expected to fund to many of other peoples financial shortcommings. The old, 'don't worry, some else will pay for that'.

Finnaly, if all custodial and non-custodial parents would do the right thing and willingly support the child/children they helped bring in to the world, there would be no need for bodies such as CSA.

After all, although I have not heard one good thing about CSA, they are simply there to sought out somebody elses mess because some responsible adults can't do the right thing.

What goes around comes around Rechtub.

Your line/view:
"Just remember, from the beginning of time, no child has ever wanted to be born as they are the result of two peoples actions and, it is those two people who are responsible for them, nobody else".

Wrong. It should read: "It is those two people, as parents, who 'should' be responsible for them [children] and no-one else".

The operative word/term being "should" in an ideal world if there were such a thing as "ideal" parents.

Yet "ifs" as most know are an illusion.

How selfish a train of thought and belief? that it is totally a parents responsibility to pay and raise their children on their own, through all obstacles, without assistance from our community at all.

Do you have children Rechtub? Have you sacrificed for any other peoples children, the way I and many other Australian parents have, to assist other children, in times of need?

I would never ever begrudge assisting children and teenagers who genuinely need support when their parents are unable to give it on occasions. Dozens of teenagers from around the country are supported regularly by fellow Australians [parents]. Do I hear these beautiful warm loving people moaning about paying $10 dollars out of their taxes to feed and clothe children whose parents spend it on alcohol, drugs and pokies [ie on themselves]?

All I can say is that when you retire [no super as a result of eaten up on administrative fees], or are unable to run your business given whatever the cause, you remember all of your sentiments, when you require some assistance financially in the future from whatever source.

My extensive experience with people from all walks of life, including business people, is that one day, on one occasion, every person requires either financial or emotional support, most of all, children and teenagers.

Antiseptic:

In reference to your thread CSA/C/Link, yes the system has required an overhaul for many years. This may be your journey and life purpose/obstacle brought your way to overcome and change the system for future separated parents. After all the hurt and wrongdoings you have endured; I offer you some consolation.

Most parents and families over the years I am friends with [40's, 50's and 60's] myself included, have endured gross wrongdoings and been let down shockingly in other ways, by the 'system. Some have suffered bankruptcy, lost their homes, savings, in addition to, more importantly, losing their children for many years as a result of a controlling dominant parent using the 'system'.

I have been a victim of corruption at a high level. One day, when my work is finished, I may publish the book from notes I put together. A story of the 8 year nightmare my family and self were forced to live through. Proven we were victims of crooked people and judged wrongfully by corrupt people in the 'system'. My heart and mind has healed for the most part. Yet those years caught in a trap, were wasted years for our children, years that can never be returned to them. However on a positive note, it has made us all stronger and more sympathetic to other people as victims.

I have always sympathised with your situation, yet admired you immensely, for raising your daughter, who was 13yrs old, by memory, in earlier posts Antiseptic. Be proud of yourself as a father; at the end of the day, your childrens respect and attitude towards you, will be the most important thing in your life. No-one else other than your childrens love and respect will matter.

...and you would know this already!

You are a kind person we are unique, your family is lucky to have you I am sure.

There is a great emotional cost to fighting 'the system' and one wonders sometimes if the cost is greater than the rewards or hope for change (or accountability).

Maybe sometimes these small inroads do make a difference. I was thinking of Andew Wilkie the other day in this context and while whistleblowing on WMDs did not achieve a withdrawal from Iraq, and in many ways cemeted what was quickly becoming apparent, the Government in it's usual character continued to maintain the fraudulent facade.

In the meantime Wilkie and many like him whose cases never reached the media, the actions merely served to make his life much harder and I am sure emotionally very challenging in the same way as the medical whistleblowers in the health system.

However in the long term his actions and those of others should always be viewed as worthwhile because each small inroad makes it easier for the next and ultimately for change and better accountability.

Sometimes it takes an anger (even if it appears misdirected) to muster the courage to report wrongdoings or fraudulent behaviour, or in the case of the CSA discriminatory practices and irregularity in the application of the guidelines.

rehctub:"The key word here is 'ANOTHER'."

Fair enough,in that case, let's take $5 from one of the middle-class welfare measures. How about we reduce the childcare subsidy for those in work by $5 a week? Means test the Family Tax Benefit? Reduce private school subsidies? There are lots of possibilities that could be considered to rejig the system without imposing a new special-purpose levy, but I like the idea of a levy for a couple fo reasons.

Firstly, it's specific. The money can't be rolled into consolidated revenue and taken by a Government to pay for political advertising.

Second, it's overt. Each time people pay their tax they will know they are paying this specific sum for this specific public good. It gives everyone a vested interest in those kids whose parents might be a bit substandard or otherwise disadvantaged.

Third, it separates parents financially. If Mum and Dad want their kids to have additionalopportunities, they will pay for them if they are able, but Mum won't be able to drive Dad into penury simply because she doesn't feel like getting a job.

Fourth, it saves close to $500 million a year through abolition of the CSA.

Moreover, we are currently enjoying the lowest personal taxes we've ever had in Australia. The average wage,according to the ABS is $60,000. $260 per annum is less than 0.5% of that. If the levy were set at 0.5% it would raise all the money needed with some left over to pay for sacking all the useless maggotts in the CSA.

Children are a common good. You rely on other people having children to produce staff for your business. You get the benefit, so what's wrong with contributing a bit to the production costs?

we are unique:"those years caught in a trap, were wasted years for our children, years that can never be returned to them."

That is precisely right and it encapsulates neatly something I've been trying to ind the words for. The current system says nothing about the well-being of the children except in certain very narrow ways. Financial stability is important, but it's not the only important thing.
My kids' constant lament has been that Mum and Dad aren't close and that we can't do things as a "family". The system has created that situation and has continued it will-nilly for 10 years. Yes, it may be partly due to corrupt officials, but I say it goes far deeper.

The doctrinally-based ideology that has created the laws and empowered those corrupt officials is pervasive in our society. So much so that it became, tangentially, a topic of discussion during the recent campaign. There are enormous amounts of Government funding given to organisations that promote it and it is perforce unquestioned by all senior public servants. That ideology is Feminism and it brooks no argument.

I am all for our society offering equality of opportunity, as long as it is genuine equality. Feminism as it is done today does not promote equality, but special treatment for women. The Ombudsman's report makes clear that such a thing is unacceptable within the CSA and that should be a warning to all organisations.

we are unique:"at the end of the day, your childrens respect and attitude towards you, will be the most important thing in your life"

Got that in one.

Antiseptic, your logic is good, but, what next.

By your own admission, we are paying less taxes, yet we are also placing more burdon on those deminishing taxes.

we are unique
I support many kids and have done for years. From sponsoring entire football clubs, to providing free meals at schools and yes, I have two (now adults) children.

Quaranteening of known offenders wages is a good place to start. As always, the few who wish to cheat the system cause havic for all others.

I have mates who have been screwed by child support.

There are two bottom lines to this issue in my opinion. The name of this organisation is deceptive, as they have no dialogue with any children and in most cases they dont provide any resources of any nature to anybody. The other thing, has anybody ever had an objective look at it all and asked the question of if the plusses outweigh the minusses?

Basically, the CSA has been established for cases where parents cannot get together and organise it for themselves. Rather than try to help them come to some agreement, they will try to cause even more friction in order to stay in the picture. This is especially evident if a man has more than one ex, but only one ex using the CSA to torment him.

rehctub:"we are paying less taxes, yet we are also placing more burdon on those deminishing taxes."

Which is why I suggested the additional 0.5% special-purpose levy which you rejected as unaffordable. My point,of course, is that it IS affordable and moreover it is necessary. As long as the State takes sides in simple family squabbles over money there will be escalation of the problems and the cost to the community is very high.

Let's start from the proposition that the best interests of the children are the goal and that for the vast majority of children both of their parents are OK. As it stands now, the legislation starts from the propsition that for most children fathers are optional extras whose principal role is to provide cash to Mum, while Mum is assumed to be a paragon beyond reproach. It's very careful to avoid mentioning Mum or Dad specifically, as it is required to do, but the intent is made clear by context. Further, by it's discriminatory application of the legislation, the CSA makes it clear that they interpret it that way.

This model is fatally flawed, based as it is on a worst case, rather than standard case. When I make a business decision, I have to look at both the best and worst cases, but I plan for the likeliest outcome, while taking precautions to protect myself against the worst and hoping that the best will occur.

The CSA assumes that all fathers are "deadbeats" since that is the justiication for its existence, but tries to take credit for the vast majority of fathers who are not, never acknowledging that its very existence makes the prevalence of "deadbeats" higher and never, ever examining the impact on children of its claimed actions "in their best interests".

A small levy would be a tiny price to pay for the end of the CSA.

PattheBogan:"The other thing, has anybody ever had an objective look at it all and asked the question of if the plusses outweigh the minusses?"

Not really, unfortunately. The legislation arose out of International Treaty obligations, specifically the International Convention on the Rights of the Child" and is based on the idea that kids should come before their parents in terms of financial support, which is not unreasonable. It also assumed that mothers were the best people to care for children, on the basis that the traditional family in Australia consisted of father as breadwinner, mother as homemaker, so it tried to perpeuate that situation following divorce. On top of all that, it pandered to the very well-organised Feminist and single-mother lobbies, who were very strongly influential in the election of the Hawke government and in the politics of radicalism.

There was also a strong awareness that the cost of supporting single mothers who chose not to work was becoming unaffordable and so it was designed to claw back some of those costs from the fathers, who are not and never have been organised as a group and who certainly don't receive Government funding to do so. We were a soft target compared to the well-funded women's groups, too busy working to sit around whingeing to each other.

That traditional family arrangement has changed significantly, which the Howard reforms to the Family Law Act made clear, but at the same time the CS legislation has become more draconian and the Agency has grown like topsy, expanding over 30% under Howard and with its budget increased by several hundred million.

All for nothing. It's a failed experiment.

I guess that there are a large number of fathers who cut back on working overtime, because child support and taxes make it unviable. If we dropped the CSA or reduced the rates, I daresay that increases in income and company tax would go a long way.

Benk, not only are there a lot of fathers failing to do o/t,etc, there are a great number on the dole. Among CSA-collect cases, which make up about 50% of all CS cases,the median taxable income of paying parents is just $20,392, while in the case of private collect cases, the median income was $36,504, some 80% higher.

If we look at the receiving parents, both private collect and CSA collect cases had a very similar level of taxable income, but private collect cases had a much higher median "child support income" - some 35% higher than CSA collect cases, suggesting that these parents were supplementing their Centrelink benefits with some work.

Still, the CSA's figures make clear that most of these recipients are also on benefits, with a median taxable income of just $26,967.

The figures come from http://www.csa.gov.au/publications/pdf/FactsAndFigures2009.pdf

The cost to the community of maintaining this poverty trap is huge.

It also looks like the CSA (or more accurately, their DHS bosses) is expecting a substantially increased workload in their Compensation Waiver, Ministerial Correspondence and Ombudsman's/ANAO Teams

http://jobs.humanservices.gov.au/sap%28bD1lbiZjPTkwMCZkPW1pbg==%29/bc/bsp/sap/hrrcf_pinstappl/application.do?sap-client=900&sap-language=EN&PARAM=UElOU1RfR1VJRD1ERkEwM0VFMTUwN0IyRkYxOEFGMzAwMjI2NEZDMzk1RQ%3d%3d

"FUNCTION:
The Strategic Stakeholder Unit (SSU) is primarily responsible for the management of highly escalated and complex complaints
that have been raised through external stakeholders including the Minister for Human Services, Members of Parliament, and the
Commonwealth Ombudsman. In addition, the SSU oversees the resolution of special financial claims made under the
Compensation for Defective Administration Scheme (CDDA) under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997."

Apart from highlighting the fact that CSA is no longer trusted to do its own receuitment, as per the Ombudsman's recommendation, it shows that the CSA has recognised the significant workload coming their way in the near future. It is the fact that the SCOs in charge of extorting fathers were simply not interested in their obligations under either the PSA or under the Financial Management and Accountability Act and that has left the CSA very exposed indeed.

I forgot to point out in my last post that the median taxable income of receiving parents is some 30% higher than that for paying parents and that there are many untaxed benefits also paid to those parents.

Your argument is very compelling antiseptic. I was hoping some of your detractors (pynchme and co) would pop up to challenge some of this. You do sound like you know the ins and outs, and back it all up with figures, but I like to hear some opposition.

It sounds like the majority of the work the CSA does is attempt to enforce guys on the dole to pay some of it to chicks who have slightly more resources? If that is the case, I must agree that the whole system would be very inefficient and better off abandoned and probably wouldn't cost the tax payer much at all if it was.

Except for the new dole payments to the ex-CSA employees of course.

Government spends a whole lot of money getting a bunch of net tax receivers to hand money over to another bunch of net tax receivers? Scrap the whole idea I say.

You've go no chance getting something like that through politically. No matter how rational the argument, it will be turned into the emotive 'public paying for deadbeat dads children'. Stupidly, they already do, with the added benefit of funding a government department to further encourage the adversarial relationship of some kids parents.

Houellebecq:"No matter how rational the argument, it will be turned into the emotive 'public paying for deadbeat dads children'"

I think that tactic is just about past its use-by date. A whole generation has now grown up with the CSA involved and that means a whole lot of young adults who've seen what it did to their dad.

The CSActs and the original Family Law act were the product of 70s feminist ideology that is now past its use-by date. The femosaurs who infest the CSA have shat in their own nest and the neighbours are starting to complain about the stench.

Once the public start to see the Compensation for Detriment due to Defective Administration claims and the waivers of debt start to flow, all because these people were so arrogant as to think that basic principles of ethical behaviout didn't apply to them, the already shaky support for the CSA will take on all the reliable strength of a taxpayer-funded Scotch Finger that's been left in the taxpayer-purchased coffee too long.

I look forward to tossing the whole mess down the toiulet and starting again.

Anti
If you have children, you are morally and finacially responsible for them and, chances are the general public has already helped along the way by way of tax payer funded assistance.

The bottom line is, they are your children, not ours and it was 'you' who chose to have them, not us.

If you don't want to support them, through thick and thin, then don't have them. Remeber, they did not ask to be born, it was your choice.

Rehctub:"chances are the general public has already helped along the way by way of tax payer funded assistance."

Nope,or at least, not to me. Lots has been given to Mum. I've not claimed a thing from the Government since 1999. Not medicare, not FTB, not unemploymnent benefit, not any kind of funding at all. I don't believe that those able to work should be supported not to and I don't believe in the sort of middle-class welfare that I'm sure you have accepted when it's been offered. I like to think I'm a man of principle and that's an important one to me.

Rehctub:"If you don't want to support them, through thick and thin, then don't have them."

I agree and I do. All I ask is that the Government stop making that task harder than it needs to be. Part of that is getting rid of the opportunity for vindictive women to create difficulties that the CSA represents. My idea for a levy simplifies the situation.

Your view is very simplistic. There are any number of ways in which children can come along unexpectedly, especially for men, whose decision-making power on the subject is limited to a decision to have sex or not and trusting in the condom top protect them. Tying people together financially is hardly going to make for good parenting if their only common ground is a one-night stand, is it?

As it stands, fathers in intact families share in the middle-class welfare handouts which reduce their cost burden. Separated fathers do not, to a very great degree, especially those with little care of their children. That means their burden is much greater than it is for someone like you,who has been fortunate not to go through a divorce.

The current scheme is justified on "the best interests of the child", so why do we only care about those interests to the extent that it lets us get money out of Dad? Is driving dad onto the dole in the child's best interests?

rehctub,

Who do you think is funding the CSA? You're paying either way. Now.

A whole lot of money is being spent getting a bunch of net tax receivers to hand money over to another bunch of net tax receivers, and in the mean time further encouraging the adversarial relationship of some kids parents.

Anti, I agree with you that the system sucks.

I have not been involved, however I have several mate who have been screwed by the system that in my view is run by man hatting women who get a kick out of kicking the guy when he's down.

As always, there is a solution and that is to treat all kids as equal. So much per week depending on thier age.

Of cause there are those who will be better off and those, worse, but, one can't expect the benefits a happy family provided when there is no happy family.

As it stands, if mum meets a nice guy who is loaded and provides for both her and the kids, dad still has to fork out a % of his wage, but, if dad gets a better paid job and mum stays at home, then dad gets screwed and, if dad looks like having a 'win', then often the kids are used as a tool against him.

I am also of the opinion that if the father of a one night stand wishes to not be involved, esspecially when the mother has several partners, then he should not be financially responsible. But that's just me.

rehctub,I think everyone knows the system sucks, except those doing the sucking.

If Rudd had spent $900 per taxpayer on fixing the child support scheme instead of just for propping up Harvey Norman's profits the net benefit to the country would have been huge. Even if he'd simply funded a child endowment scheme based on my model, the $900 that bought most people a new TV could have paid for that endowment for 4 years.