In July 2008, the media published banner headlines generated from media releases issued by the Australian Government's Minister for Human Services, Senator Joe Ludwig which includes:
Spies on dads dodging child support - Herald Sun, 23 June 2008,
"Human Services Minister Joe Ludwig announced today that undercover surveillance of parents would commence from July 1, in a bid to collect almost $1 billion in child support debt across Australia. I want child support cheats to be caught out on camera so the courts can see the truth,"
Deadbeat dads fleeing to debt-free haven - The Australian, 30 July 2008,
"Separated parents living overseas now owe around $90 million in payments to their kids back in Australia," Senator Ludwig said.
Chasing down deadbeat dads - Herald Sun, 1 August 2008,
Senator Ludwig also said “More than 20,000 separated parents are denying their children support by fleeing the country.
These mostly deadbeat dads owe a startling $90 million in child support and are guilty of a double betrayal.
Deadbeat dads don't need a visa to enter New Zealand and governments need to work together to identify and track down runaway parents.”
The one billion dollar debt level is a cumulative total incurred from the commencement of the child Support scheme in 1988/89. Over $500 million debt had accumulated by 1996/97. The Child Support Agency ( CSA ) has already been criticised by the Auditor General for using cumulative totals in their efforts to justify their performance.
Yet the CSA continues to do so, as well as ignoring false debts created using unsustainable or unrealistic income determinations. Neither can the accuracy of assessments be thoroughly checked when address details for 15% of clients cannot be confirmed. If the information were available it would be interesting to know how much of this debt is uncollectable because the payer is unemployed, disabled or deceased or the child’s circumstances have changed, but remain unacknowledged by CSA?
According to published CSA data, 96 per cent of all child support due has been paid. Read More …
January 11, 2011
Seems a bit rich these days to claim there is a ‘‘glass ceiling’’ for female jobs. Load of cobblers, isn't it? I mean, Australia has a female Prime Minister and a female Governor-General.
Has there really been discrimination over the years against mothers who work -- or against women without children?
The National Council of Women thinks so and no surprise there. I recently chatted with Victorian leader Jennie Rawther who pointed out that, among other things, women at the end of World War 1 had to give up their jobs to returning servicemen -- even though their husbands may have been killed in combat. There was no widow’s pension, nor child support.
Sounds tough but Age reader Steve Hills of Rosebud is not impressed. “There is overwhelming evidence that female health, safety and female lives were held as more valuable than men’s lives,” he says. “Men’s lives were routinely regarded as disposable. The view that women alone were discriminated against is an ignorant one.” Read More …
Australian Institute of Criminology statistics show there were 270 child homicide incidents in Australia from July 1989 to June 1999, involving 287 identified offenders and resulting in the deaths of 316 children under 15.
For example, the revised National Homicide Monitoring Program 2006-07 Annual Report states 11 homicides involved a biological mother and 5 involves a biological father.
The Western Australian figures shed light on who is likely to abuse children in families. Mothers are identified as the perpetrator of neglect and abuse in a total of 73% of verified cases.
Biological mothers account for about 35 per cent of all child murders, while biological fathers account for 29 per cent
Read More …
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 - CSA Act section 98C, section 117
The Registrar can only change an assessment if one or more of 10 listed reasons is established 'in the special circumstances of the case' (sections 98C and 117(2)).
Prior to 1 July 2008, Reason 10 applied in cases where the child support assessment was unfair because the paying parent earned additional income for the benefit of a resident child.
If one of the reasons for a change of assessment is established, the Registrar must also consider whether changing the assessment would be 'just and equitable' (2.6.17) and ' otherwise proper' (2.6.18) (section 98C(1)).