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.