Child supporrt system - Privacy and CoA

Source: AAP

Changes to child support system likely

05 Feb, 2010 08:55 AM

Kevin Rudd has flagged year-end changes to Australia's child-support system, saying the present arrangements are causing many families angst.

The Prime Minister today acknowledged that the system, which requires a non-custodial parent to make a financial contribution to the other parent for the care of their children, was a matter of "huge controversy".

"A whole lot of families are going through a whole lot of angst on this," Mr Rudd told the Seven Network's Sunrise program in answer to a question from Emily Turner, of Sydney.

The government was working on a "whole series" of long-term reform proposals.

It was important to ensure the reforms were "absolutely right" because any changes would affect many families, Mr Rudd said.

"Our anticipation is the changes to the system will be made by year's end."
........................................

It has been suggested elsewhere these 'long-term' reforms include powers of investigating 'payee rorts' and the Child Support 'Change of Assessment' process (CoA).

I have previously blogged about payees rorting the system resulting in payers enhancing payees lifestyle, at the expense of the non-custodial parents lifestyle and ability to care. At this point I won't revisit. We can only hope that the Government actually does something about 'payee rorters'.
The other issue, the CoA process, I have considerable experience of and could blog for hours about it's invasive, adversarial and discriminatory approach. For this post I will confine my comments to privacy issues of third parties and how the law actually sanctions another payee rort.

At a CoA interview, I presented evidence of being a biological parent and payments made for the welfare of another child. A child not registered with the Child Support Agency. Payments made under a Private Agreement for a child 'acknowledged' by the CSA, but not formally recognized according to the CSA under the law they administer. This resulting in a very imbalanced Child Support Assessment, hence the need for a CoA.

Prior to the CoA, I discussed with the parent I have a private agreement with, the requirement to provide evidence of support transactions. It was accepted the CSA could be privy to these transactions as the Government through Centrelink were already aware of these payments. It wasn't accepted that the parent of my CSA registered child be given details of my payments, nor other personal details. It was viewed the other parents relationship to them was via half siblings and as such, had no right to be provided information of their financial affairs.

According to the Assessment Officer (AO) at review, to take into consideration any private agreement with a third party, all details were to be made available to the 'other party' in the CoA. That as the child under the private agreement wasn't registered with the CSA, a change to my assessment would only be possible if the 'other party' agrees to my supporting a child under a private agreement be taken into consideration. At the end of the day the CS Officer would make the final decision.

I raised the privacy issue with the Assessment Officer and explained the third parties view. The AO didn't believe it breached privacy laws as I was the person making the payments. I asked if it would be sufficient if details such addresses, banks, account numbers, etc; and/or payment amounts be blacked out. I was told the evidence had to be provided in full. I asked if the CSA could provide me with the 'other parties' bank account details, address, etc; I was told they couldn't as that would be a breach of privacy. I asked what the difference was between my request and theirs forwarding on a relatively unrelated persons details to the 'other party'. The AO got into a huff, claimed it was a legal requirement. That if I didn't, they had no possibility of being taken into consideration. I asked more questions and was told I was being argumentative. The AO refused to enter into any further discussion about the issue and sternly stated I was to table the details or not. Understandably, I chose the latter.

It is worth noting the AO was an employee of the CSA and not a contract AO.

The 'other party' agreed at interview I was the biological parent of another child and was responsible in financially supporting her. The 'other party' reasoned if they agreed the support of my other child is considered, they would receive less support from me. A situation concluded as unacceptable by them. Given comments made, it was obvious the 'other party' would not agree and to present 'all details' would merely satisfy curiosity, potentially creating greater adversity given the difference between the CSA assessed child and that of the private agreement.

The outcome of the CoA was no change in Assessment be made as it only could only take into consideration children registered with the agency. An apppeal with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal upheld the CSA's view of the law and recommended a 'private agreement' between the parties. Something that has never been possible in the former 11 years and very unlikely to occur in the future given the nature of the 'other party.'

In essence, this is one example demonstrating CS law is not in control and needs to be changed. Perhaps this lack of control is the "huge controversy" Mr Rudd speaks of, or the "angst" it creates.

Child Support laws promote discrimination between the welfare of children registered with the CSA and those who are not. They sanction a payees rort to maintain fiscal remuneration in opposition to a 'just and fair' outcome for all children in a situation like the above-mentioned. The process of a CoA should be disabling the empowerment of an individuals decision for financial gain, not reinforcing it.

The privacy issue in this case exemplifies the contradicting Governments claim to promote individual rights of privacy whilst failing substantially to extend them to isolated third parties connected to people locked in an adversarial process. The CSA legislation is wrong to encourage parties through a CoA to forego the privacy of others relatively unrelated, especially when outcomes are largely dependent on those legislation have incorrectly empowered.