OPEN LETTER

 

Facsimile transmission no. 8112 1894

 

SA

23rd December 2004

 

Mr. Bill Volkers

Regional Registrar, Child Support Agency, SA/NT

GPO Box 9815

Adelaide

SA 5001

 

Dear Mr. Volkers,

 

RE:  MISFEASANCE, MALFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE & INTENTION TO CAUSE CLIENTS STRESS, MENTAL ANGUISH AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM

 

Further to your letter dated 30/11/04, I respond herewith:-

 

1.            The High Court has ruled that the legislation in its current form does not invade the judicial power of the commonwealth[1].  Consequently, you, as the Registrar cannot enforce your decisions, and therefore my involvement with your Agency as a client is voluntary.

2.            Please provide me with the particulars of how you collected and/or stored my Tax File Number (TFN), as I was not the applicant for the Administrative assessment, and also how you came to obtained it without first requesting my TFN under the legislation[2] or requesting a statement in writing from me authorizing the Commissioner of Taxation to provide the TFN[3] to you. 

3.            I confirm that I have never authorised you to use my TFN and inform you that you have taken my TFN without correctly following the steps in the legislation, as such require you to remove my TFN from your records by close of business on 4^th January 2005. You have now been made aware of section 75(v) of the constitution in any future proceedings.

4.            I require you to note the decisions of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia determined in the matter of Mee v Ferguson[4] that the question of child maintenance should be approached by considering the following issues:-

(a)   the financial needs of the particular Child

(b)   the extent to which the child has financial resources to meet those needs

(c)   a comparison of what can be described for the moment as the respective financial circumstances of the of the parties to meet the needs of the child.

I further notify you that the formula relies on the equitable principles established in the Family Court[5] in that each parent is separately liable for their share of the child’s proper needs in accordance with what the needs (standard of living) would be if the child lived with them.

I require you to provide calculations as to how you arrived at “3 months arrears backdated to 3/8/04”, and how you derived this figure based on the proper needs of a five/six year old boy whose child support obligations have been wholly met by both parents under a longstanding private agreement. I further note the Mee v Ferguson case is well documented on your internet site and also in your policy guidelines.  The most recent costs of children report assesses the cost of a child at moderate but adequate standards (Policy Research Paper No. 74 – Budget Standards Unit).

 

Federal Magistrate Mead has repeatedly determined after 23 court appearances that the child’s relationship with his father is highly beneficial and necessary for his development and that there has been nothing but care and support from both parents including lack of financial concern. 

 

Registrar’s personal performance bonus incentives used to artificially create immediate ‘arrears’ causing clients undue stress, physical and psychological harm

Failure to use provide me with calculations shall be prima facie evidence of your deliberate intention to attempt to derive personal financial gain by way of performance bonuses as an officer of the commonwealth.  You have artificially created a self- made and instantaneous ‘arrears’ that may cause me undue stress and psychological harm. 

In the event that you choose not to furnish me with accurate calculations (based on the proper needs of the child only), then I also require you to cancel all Registrar initiated arrears from the date of the application by the close of business on 24^th December 2004.

 

I have access to three statutory declarations providing evidence that your most senior officers are on performance bonuses.  I am also prepared to subpoena the unedited Channel 7 television interview of your superior Ms. Cathy Argall whom I know has also stated that the CSA officers are on performance bonuses in any future criminal proceedings against you, either by way of private prosecution or in assisting the Commonwealth director of public prosecutions or other appropriate body.

 

5.            In your letter at paragraph 5 you stated:- “the CSA properly accepted her (the mother’s) application.  This has not changed your assessed rate of child support in any way and should have no bearing on the outcome of your proceedings in court”.  Federal Magistrate Mead has ordered that the child be in my care for more than 109 nights.   I now require you to explain why you should not be charged with aiding and abetting contraventions of child contact orders for deliberately applying the wrong child support percentage, again for your own personal financial gain. I require you to cancel your assessment forthwith.

 

6.            Federal Magistrate Mead has ordered that the mother stand trial for 28 contraventions of child orders in March 2005 for the final hearing.  I require you to provide me with a letter of apology and explanation to the relevant Minister as to why you have already breached the Australian Public Service charter code of conduct by 4^th January 2005 and caused me undue stress and psychological harm.  Should you choose not to do so, the Family.Court Rules require me to arrange personal service of witness subpoena and/or contravention of child orders via another agent, and to this end I notify you of my intention to photograph you in your office in accordance with the Family Court Rules.  

 

7.            I make mention here that the administrative child support obligations are voluntary.  In that respect Mr Volkers, as well as other senior public officials in the Child Support Agency, have failed to comply with provisions of both the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 [s.150B, s.150C, s.150D] and the Child Support (Registration & Collection) Act 1988 [s.16B, s.16C].  As a result of their failure, the exercise of powers by the Registrar beyond s.30 in both Acts is wholly unauthorised.  Because of the harm caused by your unreasonable conduct, I am voluntarily entering the FamilyAdvantage.com.au private child support service about to commence in relation to which a proposal has been provided to Government.

 

Examples of Mr. Bill Volkers’ decisions and the impacts on south Australian citizens

In my recent dealings with members of the public, I can illustrate Mr. Volkers’ chosen method of administration as follows:-

 

(a)    The CSA ignored medical certificates for a father (aged 36) of five children which stated that he had ulcerative colitis, muscular skeletal fatigue, urgent diarrhoea problems, sleep disorders and had twice been in intensive care for stress.  The father attempted to reduce his earning capacity and supplied a change of assessment form stating that he required a change for health reasons. The father’s change of assessment application was refused by the CSA.  The father’s health has now deteriorated to the extent that his bowel has recently been entirely removed.  His partner has written to the SA State Coroner in anticipation of his early demise and is willing to stand trial and give evidence that Mr. Volkers harassment of her partner has significantly contributed to his failing health;

 

(b)   The CSA placed a heavy transport vehicle driver and a member of the general public’ lives at risk by assessing the payer’s earning capacity at a rate that required the driver to work 90-100 hours per week to meet his ongoing child support liability.  The truck driver collided with an unsuspecting motorist causing substantial damage to the other motorist’s vehicle.  Fortunately the other driver suffered only slight injuries to their person.  The payer had strenuously disagreed with Mr. Volkers CSA team on many occasions prior to the accident but the decision remained unaltered. The driver previously had a clean twelve year driving history, and to meet Mr. Volker’s ongoing child support liability, the driver had no option but to drive in excess of the South Australian Road Transport Authority regulations and face prosecution from the State Police for driving whilst fatigued, endangering members of the SA Police force and the general community.  After the accident, and only then, did the CSA admit they had made an ‘arithmetic error’ in the payer’s assessment.

 

(c)    A father chronic irritant contact dermatitis and worked with industrial chemicals that exposed him to the risk of industrial asthma.  His work caused him severe pain whilst he worked and he had also been treated for a major depressive disorder.  His psychiatrist’s professional report stated:-

 

“…after 3 years of his court battle and childcare (child support) maintenance” he developed “neuro-vegetative disturbance associated with some negative cognitions of depression in the form of a sense of hopelessness and worthlessness along with fleeting suicidal ideation”

 

The father applied to the CSA for a change of assessment and was told the following by Mr. Volkers’ Senior Case Officers in their Notice of Decisions as follows:-

 

-         “I am not satisfied that his responsibilities in regard to the children’s care render him incapable of working more than twenty to twenty-five hours per week,…he could, for example, adjust his working hours at least to some extent by starting work earlier on some days”

-         “Whilst it is not possible to provide a precise income figure for Mr. X. … I find that he has a capacity to earn an annual income of $50,000”. (By way of information, Mr. X’s previous salary was somewhere between $35k, $37k and $14k for the three previous years)

 

Mr. Volkers further instructed his staff to write in the objection notices that the case was now:-

-   “too complex to be dealt with” and declined to make a determination to change the (now $50k) decision

-          “In his objection Mr. X also raises other issues such as Occupational Health and Safety Compliance which are irrelevant to this decision.”

 

The man has refused to start work earlier to increase his working hours as suggested by the CSA and as a result of his responsible OHS&W actions (his reduced working hours as per the advice of many health professionals) his physical condition has improved somewhat.  However, the man’s earning capacity has remained at the unsustainable CSA assessed figure, and the man is thousands of dollars in arrears and has recently been served a threatening enforcement notice by Mr. Volkers, (again contrary to the high court decision).

 

Effects of Child Support Agency’s earning capacity decisions on the Health , Safety and Welfare of assessed paying parents and the downstream costs to the South Australian Health system, South Australian industry and the wider community

I have sought independent advice, information and support from various State and Federal politicians, the State Coroner, the Secretary of the Association of Australian Psychologists, the Secretary of the CFMEU (also President of the United Trades and Labour Council) and the Australian Industrial Registrar amongst others on a research paper into the above topic.

 

I quote in particular the following:-

 

From the Australian Industrial Registrar:-

            “It is also through courts of competent jurisdiction, namely various state courts and the Federal court that prosecution actions for breaches of awards must be instituted..”

 

From the secretary of the CFMEU:-

“The CFMEU recognises the severe stresses associated with working long hours, and the devastating impact it can cause in a workplace.

 

May I also suggest that you consider the effects of the Child support Agency’s ‘earning capacity’ decisions as potential causes of increased stress, depression and coronary heart disease on an individual in the Workplace.

Sadly, The CFMEU has also noted too many suicides that have occurred in the workplace or become aware of individuals taking their lives after a days work.”

May I suggest further articles that may assist you in your research; published by ‘beyondblue’ for depression, Workcover Corporation (e.g. wellbeing – are men their own worst enemy) an the National Heart Foundation (“Stress” and Coronary Heart Disease: Psychosocial risk factors)”

 

From the Secretary of the association of Australian Psychologists:-

            “… any individual involved is such areas of dispute would experience a considerable degree of ongoing stress,and any additional stressors would tend to increase the level of stress to a dangerously high level, possibly creating an overwhelming burden upon any individual in such a situation.        

If it was necessary for these individuals to work excessive hours so as to comply with specific demands of the Child Support Agency, … his would constitute an additional burden of stress, and one would expect these to be manifested in both physical and psychological forms, tiredness, frequent minor illnesses, nervous tension, muscular aches and stomach disorders.”

“In particular, consideration might be given to ….b) The manner in which assessments that are being perceived as being unjust or unreasonable can negatively affect their physical and mental health.”

 

Mr. Volkers, it appears that there is sound and growing evidence to suggest that your discretionary and arbitrary self-made assessments and ‘instantaneous arrears’ are causing huge social problems in terms of mental and physical health to not only your clients but also to the wider community in terms of road carnage and industrial accidents.  In light of these factors I warn you that your continued chosen method of assessment by way of lack of calculations of the proper needs of a child, your reckless indifference to medical certificates and to the dangerous fatigue related effects in terms of a client’s Occupational health and safety, the effects of working long hours to pay off ‘instant arrears’ that only exist because you as the Regional Registrar derive performance bonuses from creating them in the first place is quite literally extremely hazardous..

 

6.1% of all CSA terminating cases are dead clients

Of extreme concern, I note that 6.1% of all clients who exit the CSA scheme each year are those that are dead.  I also note that statistically, this figure is twice the figure for males of the same age cohorts in the general population (i.e. not clients of the CSA).  I have also received correspondence from the State Coroner in SA, and the Minister for Industrial Relations about lack of information relating to suicides.    

 

I note that you as the Regional Registrar of SA/NT have often made claims about being the most successful collection CSA office in Australia. I require you to provide me with the causes and figures of all CSA terminating events in SA/NT together with comparisons with the National average for the last five years.  

 

I require you to desist from artificially creating and collecting discretionary arrears from 3^rd January 2005.   Should you continue to adopt your chosen method of administration, then it shall be prima facie evidence of your intention to further cause considerable harm to all 60,000+ paying clients under your administration and warn you that you may be intentionally breaching the following various State and Commonwealth laws listed hereunder - Laws by which you are bound as an Australian Public Servant:-

 

-                     Assisting in Procuring suicides under duress (SA)

-                     OHS&W (SA) “Duties applicable to all persons”

-                     Seditious intention  - causing divide between mothers and fathers (Criminal code Act)

-                     Terrorism (Terrorist acts causing Psychological harm to sections of the Public)

-                     Influencing commonwealth officials (instructing your subordinate staff to artificially create arrears)

-                     Making unwarranted demands as a commonwealth official

-                     Multiple breaches of the Public Service Act 1999

-                     Deliberately supplying false and misleading information to clients (threatening enforcement action)

-                     Deriving undue financial gain as a commonwealth official

-                     Misfeasance and/or malfeasance and/or nonfeasance in Public office.

 

 

Please respond within seven (7) days.  I warn you that supplying false and misleading information is a serious offence.

 

Without prejudice

 

 

                                               

____________________                                _____________________

"another incorrectly assessed CSA client"                                                   Justice of the Peace

 

 

Cc:

The Prime Minister                                                                 South Australian Police Commissioner

The Hon. Christopher Pyne, MHR                                                            Federal Minister for Transport

The Hon Tony Abbott, MHR                                                        SA minister for Transport

Federal Minister for Industrial Relations                                               Attorney General - Philip Ruddock MHR

Australian Federal Police Commissioner                                      Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Kate Ellis MHR                                                                                    Trish DraperMHR

Barry Williams                                                                                     David Fawcett MHR

Various Media Outlets