SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BRANCH OF THE LONE FATHERS ASSOCIATION Inc. "Children need their Father as much as their Mother" LFAA National Peak Body

Visit FamilyAdvantage - NEW Child Support System

The Child Support Agency (CSA) is responsible for the majority of male suicide in Australia, newspaper stories indicate.

Suicide Victims “hounded” over child support

Letters

Powers of agency need to be curbed

I NOTE with interest the news report and letter about the Child Support Agency seizing money from a children's trust account (CT, January 8, p.3, and January 12, p.10). The 1994 Joint Select Committee report to the Parliament contains numerous references of illegal activity by the CSA and considered the practice to be "inconsistent with fundamental principles of natural justice". Nothing has ever been done about continuing illegalities in the CSA, no prosecutions, no dismissals, no restitution or compensation. The time is long overdue for this to be exposed and addressed. Unfortunately, it is obvious that neither the current nor previous Governments have had the courage to set up a Fitzgerald-style inquiry. Such an inquiry would never be allowed because too many powerful bureaucrats would stand to lose too much.

Dr ROBERT KELSO
Lecturer in Philosophy, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland

Agency acts as if it were a law unto itself

THE ARTICLE on the Child Support Agency seizing children's funds is but one example of the arrogance of this agency (CT, January 8, p.3) .

I expect that it will next seek to access shares and investments taken out by non-custodial parents and grandparents for the future benefit of the children.

Another example of CSA arrogance is its seizing of tax refunds due to non-custodial parents, even when the level of child-support payments is in dispute with the CSA as a result of a change in financial circumstance.

As a result of being retrenched, my income dropped substantially to the point where I was due for a tax refund for the first time for many years. Despite the change in income, the custodial parent still demanded the same high level of child support that we had agreed upon previously.

The dispute was brought to the attention of the CSA, but despite the fact that proof was provided on the lower income level, which could be confirmed independently by the CSA, and despite the CSA not replying to correspondence on the matter, it went ahead and threatened legal action and then advised it was going to seize the tax refund due to me.

When is something going to be done about this agency, which acts as though it is a law unto itself?

C. HINGEE
Duffy

SUPPORTING FATHERS

GROUND INTO THE DIRT

IT’S TIME we as a community rethink our approach on child support ("Suicide victim 'hounded' over child support” CT, November 15. p. 1). We could start by seeing that payments by lathers are set at reasonable, not punitive, levels and that there are limited agency "reviews".

As an observer, it seems to me the present system exacts an exorbitant price both emotionally and financially from fathers  whether deserted or deserting  when they have already suffered the loss of daily contact with their children.

Far too often they are left demoralised and destitute. without the resources for any new life of their own for the present and foreseeable future.

Most disadvantaged groups in our society are given help. Fathers paying_ child support are ground into the dirt.

LOIS GROSSE

Lyons

CSA MUST BE MORE SYMPATHETIC

THE UNFORTUNATE suicide of Mr Warren Gilbert after alleged "hounding" by the Child Support Agency (CT, November 1,5, p. 1 ) must not be allowed to pass unnoticed. Three children are now fatherless.

According to the report, Mr Gilbert had only $150 a week to live on after paying the CSA. This would not concern the CSA. To qualify for "hardship" consideration, Mr Gilbert would have to meet the CSA's criteria of hardship which is "where you are unable to provide yourself with accommodation, clothing, food and the means to continue employment. All other commitments are secondary to child support."

Child support legislation is in urgent need of reform. Unfortunately, the Labor Party (which was responsible for drafting the original legislation ) and the Democrats (perhaps better known as the Femocrats ) recently defeated moves in the Senate aimed at doing just this. Perhaps they might now take this matter more seriously, before more children lose a father.

C. R. HINGEE

Duffy

What happened to CSA's high aims?

I JOIN other correspondents who have raised serious concerns that the Child Support Agency acts as a law unto itself. The CSA frequently appears to make a mockery of the goals it sets in its own client charter as well as the requirements of the legislation. It also appears that the Ombudsman's Office is powerless with respect to the CSA. Child Support (Assessment) ACT 1989 Sect 98ZC Sect. (1)(b) The Registrar must: ' either disallow the objection, or allow it in whole or in part, within 60 days after the objection is lodged.' My objection was officially lodged on the August 3,1999: the review was commenced on October 13, 1999, and is still unfinished. This is neither ' prompt' nor ' sensitive to your needs' , nor does it comply with the legislation. The CSA's client charter states it will ' Give you access to your personal information' . To obtain access to your CSA file you need to apply under Freedom of Information, with fees applied, or by subpoena. What happened to ' objective and unbiased, prompt, accurate, respectful, sensitive to your needs and professional' aims of the CSA charter?

ROGER WELSH
Curtin

How arrogant can they be?

FULL marks to Community Services Minister Larry Anthony for at least trying to do something about inequities in child support legislation (CT, October 7). The Child Support Agency has been treated as a sacred cow for too long, particularly by its originator the Federal Labor Party. Particularly odious is the way the CSA treats people who lose their jobs or take on second families. For example, if one is having difficulty making support payments, the CSA says that you can complete an "Application for the Consideration of Financial Hardship". However, it defines financial hardship as "being unable to provide oneself with accommodation, clothing, food and the means to continue employment". I attempted to discover from the CSA how many people had applied and been granted assistance under this provision, only to be told that "the CSA was not established as a statistical agency" and it did not intend to respond to my inquiry. How arrogant and dismissive can a government agency be?

C. R. HINGEE
Duffy

Thursday, 9 March, 2000 Canberra Times

Child Support Formula

I would like to publicly endorse Bettina Arndt's comments (Opinion, 13/11/00) on the attitude taken by Labor and the Democrat senators on Government proposals to amend the child support formula.

There is no point in the Opposition purveying misleading averages of child support payments made by non custodial parents, or making emotive claims that if any changes are made to the child support formula children will be living in poverty, The. concern should be for non custodial parents who do in fact give financial support and for those who have been disenfranchised by a patently unjust system

In the case of non-custodial fathers on an average income with only two children, that parent will be paying on each additional dollar something close to 40 cents in tax and 27 cents in child support. Take away superannuation and costs of earning a living and what do you have?

Many fathers are left in circumstances where they are on and below the breadline and have to fall back on assistance from their own elderly parents (if still alive). These men may find it impossible to accommodate their children for the token periods they have access to them.

B C Williams BEM JP President Lone Fathers' Association (Australia) Inc.

14 November 2000

Tel (02) 6258 4216, 0417 6688 02