I have read a lot about an infamous government agency called the CSA. From my understanding it has been indirectly responsible for the suicide of many Australians (mostly fathers). Not just a few but hundreds. Information that has been kept quiet for a very long time. Australian families affected by the death of these individuals should bring a class action lawsuit against the Child Support Agency of Australia for contributing to the hardship, mental anguish and subsequent death of these human beings (and or the death of other family members involved). Should such a lawsuit be successful, then all monies payed out in judgement should be awarded to the the deceases surviving children and/or immediate surviving family and also a fund and foundation established and administered to help mothers and fathers under duress from the CSA to get free legal advice and or representation. It should also be recommended that the CSA be abolished and new simple laws established as to the monetary responsibilities of all parents.

I am sure there are plenty of lawyers and law firms and maybe even a few judges who'd like to set a new precedent.

Praetorian <" I have read a lot about an infamous government agency called the CSA."

Welcome to OLO Praetorian. You have certainly hit the ground running by opening a new thread when you are so new?
Good on you :)

This CSA subject has been brought up many times on OLO before over the years.
I always wondered why a mainly male Parliament would agree to set up the CSA the way it has been set up, if it is meant to be so anti-male?

I read somewhere that it was because of the (few) fathers of times gone by who shied away from paying for their kids needs, after separating from their mothers.

The Government didn't want to be left to pay for these kids when there was only a mother left to provide for them.
Fair enough too.

What Government then will change their minds and go back to 'the good old days' when men didn't have to pay for their kids needs if they didn't want to, after a marriage breakup?
Many men were angry if their partner left them for any reason, and then refused to pay for anything for their kids as a sort of a payback thing.

It is certainly awful when anyone dies prematurely after a marriage breakdown.
It is not the CSA's fault though.
Mental illness and/or simple rage/retribution is at fault.

If we want to decrease the unacceptably high suicide rates of males in this country (mostly country-born, young, single men), we need to look at providing more accessible mental-health facilities in country areas, and to help break down the stigma of mental health problems in Australia so that more men seek help early.

The idea of a class action against the CSA has been floated before. The biggest impediment to such an action is actually gathering evidence, since the stricy privacy rules of the CSA's enabling Acts prohibit such information being shared among potential participants in a class action.

There's also the problem of showing that the CSA acted consistently illegally, since under the Acts, it bears no reponsibility for outcomes for payers. If the CSA takes your last dollar on a Friday that rent is due, that's tough luck, you'll just have to live on the street and beg for food - no one is going to be the slightest bit concerned at the CSA since they are purely a collection agency.

It also has to be borne in mind that the CSA has policy instructions to maximise immediate collections at every point. So even if it would be more sensible to limit the amount they take from you so as to make it possible for you to continue to support yourself and hence pay more in the long run, the CSA don't consider this as a factor in their actions.

In my experience it is also very hartd for victims of the CSA to take action because the CSA have usually stripped them of any reaources that might be used to do so. A lawyer wants a deposit to initiate a stay order application, usually of between $5000 and $10000, depending on the firm. A destitute CSA payer is unable to stump that up. It's a significant part of the strategy to disenpower separated fathers that was the motivation for the CSA's establishment in the first place.

However, don't despair, the CSA is to be abandoned as a failed experiment over the next few years and its functions will be absorbed into Centrelink. While that agency doesn't have a glowing track record, it's far, far better than its feral cousin.

A good start might be in the series of increasingly critical reports from the Ombudsman.

Occasional criticisms (from the ombudsman) of ten and more years ago should have been received by the agency as dire. Specific and far-reaching criticisms of systematic failure in the agency since 2007 should have been grounds for immediate review of fitness of senior staff, and regarded as calamitous. The sacking of a large number of staff for privacy breaches should not have stopped at lower echelons but resulted in the demotion of senior staff pending review of their complicity in such criminal activity.

Class action on the woeful record of CSA in privacy may be possible.

Overall, I believe children would have been better served if the agency had never existed. I believe our society would be better off the senior managers that encouraged a palpable atmosphere of bias within the agency had never been employed and their salaries instead devoted to directly supporting children.

Rusty

A class action based on what allegation?

We have one poster complaining about the strictness of the Privacy Act in obtaining a fair hearing and others complaining about a lack of privacy.

Rock and hard place comes to mind.

My understanding is it's the Tax Office that garnishes wages of the non-custodial parent in paying child support. Doesn't the CSA just chase up those who are not paying or those suspected of not declaring income?

If there is some disadvantage in the policy in terms of hardship to the non-custodial parent then it is a government policy that needs to be targeted not the body that acts on that policy.

I must admit I was surprised to hear those paying child support are assessed on their gross income not their net income (if my understanding is correct) which would indeed prove a hardship for low and middle income workers. Why not a tax break for those paying child support? It would cost governments more in dealing with the fallout from a bad policy than easing the burden in some way and hopefully fostering more happy family relations. At least shared parenting has gone some way in addressing some of these issues.

What gets lost in this debate sometimes is the fact most separating couples work out their arrangements quite reasonably and equitably. It is the media attention on 'when it all goes sour' that gives the false impression that these situations are the norm.

The Lawsuit would be ‘Wrongful death’; a claim from the surviving family members who also themselves represent in particular the children who have suffered due to this irreversible parental loss due to suicide; The death of many ‘clients’ via suicide where the deceased has formerly declared or stated they have been taunted or bullied into a dire financial and mental situation by the CSA , an agency that gave them no space to move or to recover; also a claim of CSA’s disregard for basic ‘duty-of-care’ toward the client.

To start this class action one would require evidence of Culpability. Under Australian law, 7 (seven) ‘victims’ (the minimum) would need to be represented as a whole and the action submitted to the Federal Court. Through the representative, the families of the deceased would provide evidence of the CSA’s culpability that triggered each wrongful death. I would presume there are dozens or hundreds of letters (or personal diaries) floating around out there that could be used to show that the CSA could be culpable for the death of a client. Letters that have been written by the deceased that name the agency and what they have done to put them into their state of mental-decay could be powerful tools to prove culpability, particularly if they were suicide letters.

Documents would need to be placed in chronological order to show a state of mental decline, in addition to letters, phone records from the CSA could be issued with a subpoena duces tecum by a court, in addition if there were any witnesses present during phone calls that could testify that the deceased show signs of mental stress following a phone call from the agency would help establish culpability. As to what degree of culpability would have to be for a court to decide.

I doubt the government would allow this to proceed to trial and call for an out-of-court settlement. If comparable to most wrongful death suits it would be a multi-million dollar settlement that should be distributed evenly among the deceases children.

Pelican:"If there is some disadvantage in the policy in terms of hardship to the non-custodial parent then it is a government policy that needs to be targeted not the body that acts on that policy."

Only insofar as the body acts within legislated requirements, which the CSa has a long history of systematically failing to do. Have a look at the string of scathing reports from the Ombudsman for soem examples.

On the privacy aspect alone, as Rusty points out the Agency's record is atrocious, from misuse of data for personal benefit (check out the ex or a friend's ex), to sending information about one party's affairs to the other party and pretty much everything in between. IT also has a long history of invoking the Privacy provisions of the Acts whenever a question is asked by a coroner or the Parliament about a particular matter.

Pelican:"It is the media attention on 'when it all goes sour' that gives the false impression that these situations are the norm."

To a degree you're right, but the Agency interposes itself whether wanted or not and creates all sorts of roadblocks to the parties coming to an agreement. As I said in my earlier post, it's on the way out not just because of efficiencies that can be derived through aggregating IT back office structures, but also because it receives more complaints than any other Agency its size. It's second only to Centrelink every year in the Ombudsman's files and Centrelink is about 10 times as big. Other organisations that deal with difficult issues, like the ATO get a trickle of the complaints that flow in like a flood about the CSA.

Praetorian, I'd be very interested in your class action if you get it up. There may be something I can contribute.

The Agency and all within it including contractors had a "duty of care" one that places the *long-term* welfare of the children before any "interpretation" the agency may have of their immediate priorities.

It would have been in accordance with both the long term duty of care to the children *and* the act to encourage the maximisation of *both* parents capacity to care and pay for their children. The discretion the Agency misused to bias this should be called into question.

It might do the denizens of the agency good to face each case explicitly. The first few thousand should drive the point home.

Further, the steadily more critical Ombudsmans reports were strong hints to the agency that only the deliberately pigheaded would ignore. Certain types of action by the agency should have been curtailed and reviewed much more rapidly than they were.

Rusty

I remember anti once shocked me by quoting the cost of the CSA and comparing it to the cost of just paying the custodial parents from tax.

Politically impossible, but it seemed undeniable that all those waring ex-families would be far better off, and the tax payer barely any worse off. I was all for it. I'd see it as my tax dollars contributing to lessening the human misery of children whose parents are tied to each other financially.

Too bad for the CSA admin workers I suppose but I'm sure there's some other governmnet department that could be created to shuffle money around. Maybe a carbon tax information centre.

"too bad for the CSA admin workers"

No, not really.

If you are being paid over the odds to do a job not worth doing, being dropped back in the dole queue is a "correction" and you just thank your lucky stars that the gravy train lasted as long as it did.

They all had and have the option to get honest work.

Even "fear my phone call" Angela Tllmans had enough time to find a cushy crash pad.

It is *not* the job of the commonwealth or the tax payer to support the useless at greater rates than the dole.

Rusty

I have often thought about attempting to bring about a class action suit against the CSA, however with first-hand experience of the CSA and the 'protection' it receives from the current government, I believe you would be hard pressed to get anyone in the legal fraternity to take it on. I had two meetings with a firm of lawyers in QLD who were specialists in the child support agency area - by the end of the conversation they told me we would never win and that I probably knew more about the agency than they did!
It is an uphill battle to fight the CSA, but it is possible. Their lack of attention to detail, their incomplete and inaccurate records, their lack of transparency, all make it possible if you are prepared to fight.
In my experience with the CSA it is useless writing to the Minister responsible or the Ombudsman. The FOI is generally prepared to provide requested documentation unless it refers to a third party. The problem is when you follow the process set down in the legislation (such as appealing to the SSAT) the CSA find a way around implementing the decisions handed down.
I do believe that the CSA must be held accountable, but the government is not prepared to take responsibility. So, until someone does ‘customers’ will continue to be ripped off by the very agency that was put in place to assist separating parents. People will continue to have financially detrimental decisions made against them based on inaccurate information and will continue to suffer the CSA bias shown toward payees. It scares me to think of how many just presume because it is a government agency their decisions must be right.

Lillie,

Look at the ombudsmans reports.

Several case studies are highlighted.

These are examples of exactly what the ombudsman regards as likely to come under legal attack merely on a reading of the relevant laws.

Whether you are an aggrieved payer or payee, you will find it easy to find parallels between the "case studies" and many typical instances of dissatisfaction.

The CSA has a newly made section devoted to compensation (and waivers).

Be aware that accepting compensation may preclude you taking further action against officers of the agency for incompetance, privacy breaches or malfeasance not ordinarily protected by the public-service acts, so get your ducks in order first.

Rusty

Thanks Rusty - I will certainly look into the Ombudsman's reports and the new section devoted to compensation. Can you provide any more information on this compensation area?

I have evidence of malfeasance against 2 CSA senior executive managers and at least 2 CSA officers. The evidence has been made available to the Prime Minister, Minister and Ombudsman. My own experience suggests that only the latter has any interest in addressing the issues but even then there is a lack of responsiveness and an inability to address unique problems.

In relation to the malfeasance I will be presenting this evidence again as my case progresses.

It continues to amaze me that all of my evidence is limited to CSA documents only but the CSA won't take action, the Government won't take action and there appears to be no respite (or closure) for clients.

"It continues to amaze me that all of my evidence is limited to CSA documents only but the CSA won't take action, the Government won't take action and there appears to be no respite (or closure) for clients."

This is par for the course. The CSA and to a certain extent the APS in general have a culture of cover-up and obstruct that is hard to break through. In the case of the CSA it's covering up systematic malfeasance as you put it and that cover-up starts at the top. The Agency gave me the run-around for many years and did its level best to send me broke by garnishment, all because I disouted an obviously incorrect assessment and said "fix it, or I won't pay". It is interesting that they weren't prepared to discuss any aspect of that matter until they thought the statutory period limiting court action had expired. At the first meeting after that period, the first thing mentioned was the expiry of the statute. Hardly the action of a "model litigant" as is required by the APS Act and even less the action of an ethical Agency determined to produce a fair and reasonable outcome.

Have a look at familylawwebguide.com.au if you would like to go further. There are some very knowledgeable people on that site, which was set up as a gateway for people interested in shared parenting after separation and related matters. They have an excellent sub-group that is devoted to assisting self-represented litigants and a great deal of information on dealing with the CSA.

As I said though, it's all on the way out anyway. They've been simply too much trouble, having been run by a series of third-rate ideologues, mostly because anybody of any capacity would run a mile

Thank you for all the suggestions - have spent the last few hours reading Ombudsman's reports and checking out the Family Law Webguide. Some very interesting and useful information.

In respect to compensation - it seems that the same people (Minister and CSA delegates) get to decide whether or not you are eligible for it - when is anything going to be transparent and impartial?

That is one area Antiseptic and I are in agreement. It is difficult to break through the cover up mentality of the APS. It is difficult even if you are employed by the APS and know some of the 'short cuts' but virtually impossible if you are not aware of all avenues open to you.

Tenacity helps - being a pain in the bum basically even if you remain professional and polite at all times (difficult I know).

Squeaky wheels can break through - sometimes. Much depends on your approach and the tendency to cover up mistakes can work to your advantage if you approach other (relevant) agencies. Much can happen if there is an awareness that another APS body might become involved. Keep records and diaries (dates and names) and use FOI as much as possible to provide supporting documentation. I did not do that early on in a particular case but learnt a lot in the process.

There is no one right answer as it depends on a bit of luck. Finding a public servant that might have a backbone or a modicum of doing what is fair and right. It does happen. But not often...:(

Thanks Pelican......we have tried tenacity and are now being 'punished' for doing so.

In good faith my partner entered into a payment plan for the alleged debt, on the understanding that, should the SSAT uphold his appeal and find in his favour (meaning no debt) that he would have the money repaid by the CSA/payee. The agreed amount has been paid on time each month yet the CSA has now decided, with no reference back to my partner, to garnishee his wages AND increase the monthly payment by 600% (yes you read that correctly.) The CSA has also advised that they have the discretion NOT to recover the money should it be found it was paid in error (a CSA error). All of this with no knowledge or consideration of our financial situation AND with the knowledge that my partners ex has been salary sacrificing for the past 12 years. What happened to making sure both parents CORRECT income is used in the upkeep of their children and when does the CSA back off and allow closure (his youngest is 19).