Halge and Carroll judgement  This case is a classic example of the CSA's overzealous approach to "helping" causing problems for all concerned, the payer, the payee and the children.

In this case the CSA ignored a court order for maintenance and stole money the agency was not entitled to. Both parties told the agency it was taking too much. CSA ignored the court order and the protestations of both parties for 4 years before refunding the stolen money to the payer. Then the CSA turned their jackbooted attention on the payee to recover the overpayment.

CSA's "helpful" suggestion to resolve the issue without causing hardship for the children was for the payer to give the refunded overtheft to the payee as a "gift", so that she could then give it to the CSA.

The Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues: Five years later
By Dr Robert Kelso

Abstract

In November 1994, the Australian parliament tabled the report of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues (JSC Report). Five years and many cosmetic changes later, the Child Support Agency (CSA), politicians, and bureaucrats, have yet to address the more fundamental legal and administrative problems exposed in the report. Rather than address the substantive issues, such as the illegal activities by CSA officers, the conflicts of interests and the “appalling client service delivery”, the government, through legislative changes, and the CSA, through administrative reform, have strengthened compliance and collection procedures while trying to protect those areas of their operations, general administration, complaints and reviews, of which the Report was so critical. This paper explores issues raised in the JSC Report, particularly those legal, constitutional and ethical concerns which the CSA and governments have sought to avoid.

Parliamentary speeches in the Senate on the Joint Select Committee report, December 1994.

Grievance debate from 1993. "Whilst I acknowledge and welcome the inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues on the child support scheme, according to my constituents who are part of the scheme, it is long overdue. From my conversations with many constituents, who are both custodial and non-custodial parents, I am concerned that the Child Support Agency seems to be operating as an unguided missile, and that it is making decisions on people's lives without consideration of the facts and individual circumstances." - Atkinson 2/9/93

6 years later nothing has changed. The JSC report was tabled in 1994. The government knows the problems. But still they have done nothing. A challenge to the government: Act on the recommendations of the JSC. All of them, not just the easy ones.

Ganter and Grimshaw judgement To be fair this case does not involve CSA. The court was bound by legislation reflecting parliament's intent behind the child support tax scam. In judgement the full court commented:

"It seems to us manifestly unjust that a working man, such as the father, should be left with $255.50 to support himself, his wife and their child, whilst the non-working mother will have at least $390.00 per week to support herself and her three children, plus the additional fringe benefits (by way of reduced fees payable for a range of services) which are available to her as a recipient of Social Security benefits. The injustice is all the more manifest when it is appreciated that the mother’s ultimate income position is not significantly improved [$0.17c a week] by increasing the maintenance payable by the father from $40.00 to $75.00 per week, yet the father’s position is significantly worsened by that increase. The only beneficiary of that increase is the public purse, through the reduction of the mother’s social security entitlements."

Ironically the court explored the option of using the child support formula to determine maintenance and determined that application of the formula would work a substantial injustice to the mother and the children.

This judgement is worth a read to see how maintenance could be worked out if the government stopped interfering in what is essentially a personal and private matter.