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.