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.