Response to "Changes to the Child Support System"
 

Peter Ferguson
Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter - July 2008

As a man with first hand experience of the problems associated with the collection of Child Support payments I was absolutely disgusted by the recent article in the Fatherhood newsletter written by John Flanagan.
 
This issue is so important to many Australian families. It needs a credible voice that can be respected and taken seriously by mainstream Australians. Unfortunately the comments attributed to John Flanagan falls far short of that objective. They are fundamentally flawed ramblings.
 
I object most strongly to the emotive use of sad faced children in this story.

I accept the point that the best solution is with both parents being involved in the decision making process. In fact there is a legal framework allowing parents to come to an agreement. My experience is that CSA staff are only too willing to encourage agreement between parents to get them off their books. The downside to this solution of course is the fact that the parents have just agreed to go their separate ways and deprive the child (children) of a loving environment consisting of a mother and a father. History would suggest that at such a time agreements on money are hard to come by. Subsequently most of the 3452 employees of CSA spend their time trying to force fathers to provide financially for their children, sorry absolute fact, a fact that as a man I am absolutely ashamed of.
 
There are gross irregularities with the CSA legislation, but why would any government devote time to legal injustices when the major issue by a long way is the attitude of fathers who ignore their legal and moral obligation to financially support their children.  
Let's a look at the recent legislative changes.
 
Better legal framework to pursue defaulters, seizing assets. Is this any different to the enforcement of any other debt? Why should it be?
 
Amounts salary sacrificed into superannuation to be included in assessable CSA income. Is there an argument here? Why should a payer be able to defer income for their benefit, thereby artificially reducing CSA assessable income?
 
Fringe benefits are grossed up by exactly the same method used for calculating tax. Without going through each of John's examples, it is clear the logic of each example is equally flawed. It seems as if the suggestion is that only the net fringe benefit should be included. Example (a) Salary $35,000. If the salary component is $14,500 then the income for CSA purposes is grossed up to $47,603. This is exactly the gross salary needed to generate the original $35,000. And you have to ask yourself why would you sacrifice salary at this level of income which is taxed at 15% for fringe benefits which are taxed at 45%? There are two possible answers, one, you are stupid, two to avoid child support.
 
When the voice of single parents becomes a credible one, when the motivating factor of the voice is to get a fairer but honest deal instead of a voice trying to cheat the system, then we will have hope for rational negotiation for a fairer system.
 
At it stands the CSA is the only thing that stands between the disgraceful behaviour of many men and poverty of their children.
 
Peter Ferguson