Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to raise an issue of child support and the conduct of the Child Support Agency on behalf of a constituent of mine whom I will call Mr B. He has asked me to use that sobriquet and to discuss the difficulties that he has had with the Child Support Agency.

In 1999 Mr B’s wife left him and took his two young sons. His 18-year-old daughter remained and Mr B’s wife took everything from the house. What he found, much to his displeasure, was that his wife’s payments, which were then calculated by the Child Support Agency, were calculated one week before she left the home because the CSA thought she needed the money. Mr B believes that the CSA incorrectly calculated the payments, and Mr B spent many months getting this matter rectified.

In February 2003 Mr B attended a change of assessment conference. Mr B agreed to pay an increase in payments to his ex-wife under various terms and conditions. But, when the report came in, the amount requested was considerably higher than that which he thought they had agreed to in the actual conference. I will quote from a letter that he wrote to the Child Support Agency on 13 June 2003 about this matter. His letter reads:

First of all I point out that at the 3rd Feb conference I explained that my previous tax return had not been completed. However this was not discussed any further as I agreed to an increase in the CSA payments. This amount was recommended by the case officer and was based on an amount higher than my expected taxable income.

In my letter ... you claim that I was given the opportunity at the conference to provide detailed information in regards to my income. This information was available but was not asked for by the CSA officer at the conference.

He was not able to appeal that decision, and I have extensive file notes about the conversations he had with the relevant case officers and the relevant review officers with respect to this matter. I say quite frankly to this chamber that I think he was treated very poorly. In fact, he was only given an opportunity for another assessment in December 2003, 10 months after the original conference. Again, the assessment officer, in Mr B’s view, did not give him a fair hearing. They made a report about this matter, which was later criticised by the Ombudsman, but there was no further action taken against this officer or any recompense for Mr B. He has had further difficulties with them.

I do not believe this person, from my review of the file notes, has been treated well by the Child Support Agency, and I do believe there needs to be an appropriate appeals mechanism whereby, if there is any unfairness in the calculation of child support, it can be rectified, rather than my having to resort to standing up in parliament and pleading his case. (Time expired).