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