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?