Work and Pensions Committee visit to Australia—13-17
September 2004
NOTES OF THE VISIT[100]
MONDAY, 13 SEPTEMBER
2004
Meeting with Michael Raper, immediate past President
and Peter Davidson, Senior Policy Adviser of Australian Council
of Social Service (ACOSS)
ACOSS is an umbrella organization covering the
"third sector," including community and voluntary services,
the welfare sector and other service providers. They aim to reduce
poverty and inequality by developing and promoting responsible
public policy; they support the role of non-governmental organisations;
and contribute to national policy making. ACOSS works across a
range of issues including training and employment, social security,
health and housing. In addition, to their staff of policy officers
and the executive board, there are three honorary advisers appointed
who suggest policies and advocate them in the media. ACOSS has
now developed a high profile and works with all sides of the political
spectrum, giving a voice to the issues facing disadvantaged people.
No similar organisation exists in the UK.
ACOSS focuses on the economics and tax side
in additional to "traditional" social security. A significant
consideration is that, because social security is tax-based and
is 45% of government outlays ($55 billion in total), social security
is frequently "raided" when politicians require additional
funds for something else.
Social security and tax credit payments have
become more generous, targetted and efficient. Payments for children
include the child endowment which is an anti child poverty strategy
initiative (although there is no national strategy on child poverty).
A family payment for single earner families with children gives
women (including lone parents) the choice of staying at home.
Child support is an important income strand.
The main problematic areas are as follows. If the non-resident
parent (NRP) does not make payments or allows arrears to build,
this causes debt problems for the parent with care (PWC) since,
if the arrears are then paid, they are paid in one lump sum which
often takes the PWC over the annual income limits for tax credit
purposes.
An additional problem is shared care arrangements
as both parents are able to claim tax credits for the period for
which they are caring for their child. Those with less than 30%
can waive their right to their portion of the tax credits. Reducing
child support payments based on shared care arrangements can have
poverty implications for PWCs. An additional issue is that the
expense of raising a child across two households is greater and
the government does not recognise this.
Take-up of tax credits is not a big problem
as they are paid fortnightly, although overpayment is widespread.
Of the 1.8 million people receiving Family Tax Benefit, 660,000
have an overpayment at the end of the year and repayment is difficult
to arrange. A $600 lump sum payment at the end of the year has
been introduced to address this issue. In addition, the Government
has indicated that, where claimants notify Centrelink of changes
in circumstances, changes to payment will not be applied retrospectively.
Where a PWC is on benefit, application to the
CSA is compulsory. 52% of CSA cases are now private collect. The
IT system does work well and there are few data protection issues
with the CSA system. There is political pressure on child support
to reduce the burden of payment for NRPs. MPs say that this is
the most common complaint from constituents. ACOSS strongly defends
the CSA against any reductions in the child support calculations.
When the CSA was first introduced there was a massive increase
in child support compliance as the previous court system was so
ineffective. Enforcement through the tax system does improve compliance.
Where NRPs are self-employed there is the problem in Australia,
as in the UK, that accountants are used to obscure actual income
for child support calculation purposes. The Australian system
differs from the UK in that it uses the net income calculation
for child support, rather than gross income.
A minority of NRPs are very organised and vocal
which tends to distort the view of child support in the media.
ACOSS also claim that the biggest backbench committee on child
support is largely constituted of similar NRPs.
Meeting with Michael Bittman, Senior Research
Fellow of Social Policy Research Centre and other senior staff
at the University of NSW
There had been no cost-benefit analysis into
the success of the Child Support scheme. There was a strong lobby
from Non-Resident Parents (NRPs) on the amounts payable. Although
some data was collected (eg Household Income and Labour Dynamics
Australia (HILDA)) UK data collection was seen as superior. A
small project in 1997 had examined modest but adequate and low-cost
incomes but non-random selection made the research questionable.
CSA simulation modelling had concluded that
CSA had reduced child poverty by 1% but child poverty had increased
since 2000 because incomes at lower levels were static. There
was a correlation between young mothers and socio-economic disadvantage,
and there was a trend toward fewer teenage mothers. Centrelink
data shows that mothers change status and there were issues around
re-partnering and policy questions on transitional payments.
Centrelink were currently researching the annual
reconciliation of income and the link with Income support for
low-income families which caused problems which arose when they
changed status. Complexity was a problem but the tax system was
quite efficient, with a six week delay in changes to payment.
The situation of lone parents who re-partner
needed to be examined. Housing costs were central and crucial.
Child poverty levels varied because of the varying effect of social
policies. There should be linked assistance for informal childcare.
Trials were increasing participation by lone parents, but there
was a need to understand changing social mores. More parental
leave was proposed, mostly unpaid.
Meeting with Professor Patrick Parkinson, Chairman
of the Family Law Council and Professor Faculty of Law of Sydney
University
Prof Parkinson is the chairman of the recently
announced Ministerial Taskforce on child support. The taskforce
was created following a recommendation in the report from the
House of Representatives Committee on Family and Community Affairs
Inquiry into child support following parental separation. The
taskforce will provide advice on the Committee's recommendations,
evaluate existing child support formula percentages, examine the
exempt and disregarded income levels and will make proposals for
change. The taskforce will report back to Government in March
2005. It is the first review of the child support system since
1988.
The House of Representatives Committee faced
enormous pressure from NRPs on contact issues. Research suggests
that 36% of separated fathers are not seeing their children at
all and 75% of these are deeply dissatisfied with the situation.
Of the 64% of fathers who are seeing their children, just over
half have them to stay overnight. 25% of adolescent children have
never stayed overnight with their father. Contact is linked with
poverty among NRPs who do not have the money or the space at home
to allow their children overnight stays. In addition, the geographical
distance between fathers and children can limit contact. Research
suggests that contact between fathers and children increases the
likelihood of maintenance being paid. In spite of these issues,
the Committee recommended against shared care being the norm for
parents upon separation as they regarded the main problem as the
process of agreeing contact within the courts.
A key part of reforms recommended following
the House of Representatives Committee report was Family Relationship
Centres (FRC). The taskforce is now considering how these may
contribute to the understanding of and compliance with the CSA.
The aim is for FRCs to be the first port of call for those separating
or divorcing, rather than lawyers. FRCs will provide a wide range
of services including mediation and advice upon child support,
divorce, finance and so on. The plan is also to provide pre-marriage/cohabitation
advice. It is hoped that 65 FRCs will open across the country
as well as a national freephone number to ensure that FRCs are
highly accessible to the general public. The success of FRCs would
be measured by a reduction in the use of courts at relationship
breakdown. For example, fewer divorces filed in court; more amicable
relations between separating couples; a reduction in the number
of contact orders; more parents with a "parenting plan";
and an increase in the number of fathers seeing their children.
Ninety per cent of all separated families are
on the CSA's books. Of the current CSA cases around half are CSA
collect and half are private collect. The Agency actively promotes
private arrangements rather than the Agency collection service.
Private collect cases tend to be higher income couples. Around
70% of new clients opt for private collect. If parents are on
benefit, the NRP can still pay privately, providing that payments
are made to the PWC. The PWC can opt for private collect—the
reasons why PWCs opt for private collect are not known. Reported
Agency compliance rates are very high (around 88%), although this
does not include private collect cases, where it is assumed compliance
of 100%. Anecdotal evidence suggests that compliance on private
collect cases is not as good as the Agency suggests.
Forty per cent of all NRPs are paying the minimum
payment of $5 per week. There is no provision in the CSA formula
for step-children. If the NRP is non-compliant, employer withholding
can be implemented quickly and no court order is needed. A change
of assessment can be requested at any time if NRP income changes.
One of the key issues that the taskforce will
examine is the basic philosophy of the CSA and what they are trying
to achieve. For example, should children be entitled to the same
standard of life as before parental separation?
Meeting with Andrew Clarke, Regional Manager and
other members of Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS)
The service was an agency of the Department
of Family and Community Services and had been established under
the Disability Services Act 1986 in order to provide support for
people on Income support to assist them to find work. There was
a large potential for savings in costs by successful rehabilitation.
There were 166 regional Boards and 1,700 employees, of which 1,000
were health professionals. The typical wait for an appointment
was four to six weeks in Sydney and a typical programme lasted
nine months from referral to completion. Rehabilitation was voluntary
and success was measured by employment outcomes of sustainable
jobs after three months. The cost was $3,072 per programme. The
service was providing 370 programmes in Sydney this year—aiming
for 160 clients in sustained job placements.
TUESDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER
2004
Meeting with Elizabeth Wing, Manager—Enquiries
and Conciliation at the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board
The Board had been established in 1977, was
independent, but funded by the State. There was no link with Centrelink.
Religious discrimination was not dealt with separately but was
included within the Race category. Private clubs were not included
because of religious sensitivities. 60% of cases resulted in conciliation.
Tribunals made administrative decisions and do not award costs.
Disability discrimination legislation would be in place by about
2014. Age discrimination would also be covered in the future.
Meeting with Sue Price from Men's Rights Agency
The Men's Rights Agency (MRA) claims that 6.1%
of the CSA client bases dies earlier than the general population.
This may be due to stress-related illnesses or suicide. The UK
CSA is easier on the wallet than the Australian system, plus Australians
are taxed at a higher rate. The MRA argue that the average Australian
wage is around $39,000 per annum which would result in child support
payments of $7,000. They do not agree with the principle that
children should be entitled to have the same standard of life
post-parental separation. They do not oppose the principle of
child support but they do propose that child support should be
based upon the costs of raising a child rather than upon the NRPs
income. The MRA also assert that high taxes combined with high
child support payments results in fathers giving up work and non-compliance
of child support. They also claim that the CSA is the most hated
government Agency in Australia.
The MRA report that the CSA has a problem of
accountability. The CSA are very poor at answering the customer
phonelines and that there are problems with the IT. Australian
politicians claim that 30% of their constituency business is child
support related. The MRA claim that CSA staff are paid performance
bonuses on the amount of child support collected.[101]
The CSA used to be part of the Australian Tax Office and the MRA
claim that this led to data protection issues as data was illegally
shared between government Agencies.
The MRA argue that both parents are important
in a child's life and that fathers are frequently refused contact
with their children. The court process is designed to resolve
contact issues before they reach the courts. 5% of contact cases
are dealt with in the courts. A three tier structure was introduced
for breach of contact orders: parenting classes; fines; and jail.
The jailing of fathers for non-payment of child support is no
longer done. Mothers can be jailed for denying contact, although
the courts rarely enforce this.
The MRA claim that the official working papers
agreeing the child support formulas have been "lost".
Irwin Garfinkle, from Wisconsin USA, designed the Australian system.
He based it upon the Wisconsin system which was designed for those
earning less than $20,000 per annum, whereas in Australia the
system goes much higher up the income scale. The MRA allege that
2% of the child support formula is meant to be for the mother,
although the CSA will not admit this.
Parents opt for private collect as they do not
want the Agency to interfere with their arrangement. The MRA believe
that contact is important in terms of securing compliance with
child support and that they need to be linked together. It is
important that compliance is achieved voluntarily.
Lunch and round table discussion with Dr Paul
Henman in the Speaker's Dining Room at Parliament House, Macquarie
Street, Sydney and at Sydney Airport
Dr Henman has conducted research into the costs
of contact between NRPs and children and to what extent the CSA
formula meets the costs of children. This has been published in
the UK's Journal of Social Policy. Using budget standards methodology
to estimate the costs for NRPs exercising regular contact with
their children, Dr Henman found that the costs for contact for
20% of the year are 40% of the costs of the child if it was in
an intact family. The research suggests that there may be problems
with the assumption that the costs of contact are a time-based
pro-rata proportion of the costs of raising children full-time.
The recent House of Representatives inquiry
(from which the child support taskforce emerged) did look at the
costs of children, but did not take into account the government's
contribution in the form of benefits and tax credits. Family benefits
start to taper off at an income level of $30,000, in spite of
the fact that the average income in Australia is $39,000.
Dr Henman's research also indicates that the
pre-separation living standards of all family members cannot be
maintained after separation without either an increase in the
government assistance or an increase in the parents' earnings.
Consequently, if child support policy attempts to maintain the
pre-separation living standards of children then there is a danger
that the level of child support liability may be at the expense
of the ability to afford contact or of compliance with child support
liabilities.
WEDNESDAY, 15 SEPTEMBER
2004
Meeting at the Child Support Agency with Ms Catherine
Argall, General Manager and Mr Trevor Sutton, Assistant General
Manager, Business Strategy Branch, and senior officials
Service Delivery Model—Voluntary Compliance
The 1.3 million parents who use the CSA are
95% of the eligible separated population. The $2.2 billion in
child support payments is a combination of the private and Agency
collect cases.
The 100% pass through is an important feature
of the Australian CSA. Every dollar paid is transferred to the
payee and the claw back is limited to payments above $3,000. Parents
register by telephone as customers and details are then checked
though the taxation system. Child support arrears can also be
transferred through taxes.
Child support assessments can be refreshed on
request by either parent. When parents lodge their tax returns,
the CSA is notified and the CSA reassesses the liability. The
CSA formula can be changed to reflect "special circumstances."
A full assessment of circumstances can be explored, for example
if a NRP gives up paid work to study for an extensive period,
this may be acceptable if this will increase their long-term earnings.
Regarding self-employed NRPs, if they are thought to be minimising
their income, "special circumstances" can be invoked
by the PWC or, since 2000, the CSA can initiate a change of circumstances.
All child support assessments are based upon
net income. For example, an assessment of a self-employed NRP
will not include legitimate business expenses. A PWC can apply
for a change of assessment under one of 10 grounds and the NRP
has a right to respond. A senior case officer will examine the
case and will look into the NRPs tax records to assist with decision-making.
All CSA staff are heavily trained as the Agency
could not afford a high staff turnover. Attrition is around 10%
per year and they do not want it to go above 15%. Staffing levels
have remained stable in recent years and the caseload is increasing.
Staff are selected for their "value alignment". The
Agency has researched the personal characteristics of their best
staff and now tests for similar characteristics when recruiting.
The emotional resilience of staff plays a key role.
The telephony system identifies new claim calls
and will divert them appropriately. 90% of phone calls are answered
within 30 seconds. Collection and enforcement runs across all
staff streams and debt collection is the responsibility of all
staff. The collection rate is 95% of all child support liabilities
since 1988. The Intensive Debt Collection project targets those
who can pay but won't pay. About 5% of NRPs are being traced to
find out where they are living.
With reference to the Client Service Delivery
Model, maximising compliance is the goal and encouraging private
collection is also important. 52% of CSA cases are now private
collect and the potential population is 70% of all CSA cases.
Private collect cases still use the CSA formulas, modifications
etc, it is just the money that is transferred independently of
the CSA. Payments are made monthly. Liabilities are generally
higher for private collect cases, although benefit claimants can
opt for private collect. In these cases, the information is transferred
to Centrelink who then deduct benefits, as appropriate. Lone parent
benefit is not affected by child support, only payments for children.
Private collect tends to be chosen by customers because of existing
amicable relations between parents. If payments are being made
through the CSA, the Agency can initiate private collect if the
parents agree.
Only a minority of private collect cases have
been shown to involve intimidation of the PWC. Staff work closely
with customers in the first nine months of their claim to ensure
arrangements are working. All staff are trained to recognise parents
at risk who are then offered community support. If a PWC on benefit
experiences a default in private collect maintenance payments,
she notifies the CSA, Centrelink are then informed and benefits
are adjusted accordingly. The CSA admit that they do experience
problems in picking up on private collect cases where the first
payment is defaulted upon.
No administration fee is charged for private
collect cases and they are much cheaper to manage than CSA collect
cases—approximately one-fifth of the cost. The money that
the CSA saves through private collect cases is then put into frontline
services and case management. Case officers still manage private
collect cases through the assessment procedure until regular payments
are secured.
On the improving rate of customer satisfaction,
there is a high correlation between satisfaction, contact with
children and the relationship between both parents.
Child Support Arrears
Gross outstanding debt is currently $839 million,
which represents 5% of child maintenance liabilities. Of this,
$97 million involves cases where the NRP now lives overseas and
this represents 20% of the non-compliant customers. It is hard
to put a figure on the number of NRPs who leave the country to
avoid paying child support.
The Intensive Debt Collection (IDC) project
was launched to tackle hard debt. The aim was to bring debt levels
down to the July 2002 level. The scheme has now been extended.
In the first year of IDC, collections were increased by $24.6
million. It is important to note that there was no double counting
of maintenance collected. For example, if the NRP had paid 60%
of their maintenance and the IDC project successfully collected
the 40% outstanding, then only the 40% was counted in the total
figure collected through IDC. Collections through IDC are more
expensive—it costs $1 to collect $4.20, whereas it usually
costs $1 to collect $8. The CSA recognise that collections through
IDC will get progressively more difficult.
IDC teams have been set up across the country
with their own targets and outcomes which are reported on a weekly
basis. It is not true that CSA staff are paid performance bonuses
for collecting maintenance debt. The IDC method is for staff to
telephone clients immediately they are allocated cases and not
to research the cases first. This has made a significant difference
in success levels. All letters that are sent out to NRPs are then
followed up by telephone. The IDC ethos is now being embedded
into the wider CSA.
Once customers are targetted through IDC they
tend not to fall back into debt. IDC also benefits relationship
issues through improved compliance. All NRPs contacted through
IDC are put in contact with money advice services. Lump sum payments
of outstanding debt used to be avoided, although since they have
now been found to be more successful at achieving compliance than
employer withholding, lump sum payments are now frequently sought
by staff. Employers are quite neutral over employer withholding
and there have not been any complaints. All those paying child
support receive a monthly statement of their liabilities.
Penalties for late payment of child support
are used strategically to promote compliance. The money goes to
the exchequer rather than the children. A campaign is currently
being run by the Agency to waive late payment penalties if NRPs
agree a repayment plan for their arrears. This project has been
successful and NRPs are initiating contact with the Agency after
they have seen advertisements of the project.
The CSA has powers to prevent non-compliant
NRPs from leaving the country: the Departure Prohibition Order
(DPO). This is carried out through the customs in Australia, rather
than recalling NRPs passports. When a DPO is used, the CSA does
not encourage media attention.
Round table meeting with Department of Family
and Community Services officials:
Mr Stephen Hunter, Deputy Secretary,
FaCS
Mr David Graham, General Manager, CRS
Australia
Mr David Kalish, Executive Director,
Family Cluster
Mr Roger Barson, Assistant Secretary,
Office of Disability
Mr Tony Carmichael, Assistant Secretary,
Family Relationship Services and Child
Support Policy Branch
Ms Robyn Seth-Purdie, Family Relationship
Services and Child Support Policy Branch
Ms Helen Bondaruk, International Branch
(Multicultural Policy)
CSA was semi-autonomous but had a responsible
Minister within the Department. There were international reciprocal
arrangements which differ depending on the country. New Zealand
and the UK are the most common countries involved. International
cases cost about 30% more to manage than Australian cases.
The taskforce established under the Chairmanship
of Professor Parkinson had been the result of a Parliamentary
Committee's recommendation following an inquiry lasting 6 months
and receiving some 700 submissions. The Taskforce was composed
of people with expertise and there was a reference group which
included interest groups.
It is uncommon for CSA cases to have shared
care arrangements. Around 30,000 PWCs are actually grandparents.
Child support and contact were dealt with as separate issues.
36% of fathers do not see their children but three-quarters want
to. The solution was to encourage more contact.
There had been initial problems with the IT
systems. After 2½ years an independent assessment was undertaken
and as a result the project was brought "in house".
The boundaries of commercial confidentiality were set out in a
document which was promised to be forwarded to the Committee.
The link with Inland Revenue is crucial to the successful operation
of the scheme.
Rehabilitation was encouraged through Centrelink;
Job Networks (for the private sector); disability employment assistance
agencies and the CRS (for moderate/severe disability). CRS was
not a medical organization, but aimed to help people into work
by using case management. It was community based and funds were
available. The average case lasted nine months. 37% of cases ended
up in durable employment. For each Aus$1 invested there was a
return of Aus$30.
THURSDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER
2004
Meeting with Professor Meredith
The Australian system was based on a similar
(failed) system in Wisconsin. Use of the law was a last resort,
administrative action via the Tax Office was preferred. The scheme
had been deficient in not focusing sufficiently on contact and
enforcement of access. All payments had originally been via CSA
but direct payment was now permissible. There had been a shift
towards a focus on equity between parents rather than the needs
of children. The use of net pay for calculations has a disincentive
to the NRP. An exception had an effect on the 18% rate—using
indirect costs favoured the number rather than the age of children.
Gross earnings were preferable for calculations. There were more
constraints on earnings for lone parent families. There should
be more shared custody but the NRP should not be forced to provide
more care than before separation. There should be more reconciliation
and counselling.
Meeting with Dr Alison Moorhead and Mr Bruce Smyth
and others at Australian Institute of Family Studies
The AIFS has a long-standing interest in child
support since AIFS were established in 1980. Since the CSA came
into being, there had been significant social change and there
is now a pressure to modernise the Agency. The main criticisms
are that NRPs are paying too much and, from PWCs, that payments
do not always occur.
The original Australian child support scheme
was intended to be universal and retrospective, although retrospectivity
has not been maintained. It had been brought in in two stages:
stage 1—for new cases (increased the number of orders and
the level of the liability). There was great opposition to stage
2—the difficulty of picking up cases with existing maintenance
arrangements was identified.
The scheme was intended to be universal, ie,
applied whether parents are on benefits or not. However many parents
make private payments using the CSA private collect system (around
50% of CSA cases), although assessments are still made via the
Agency. In addition, there was a gradual realisation that people
could make own private agreements, providing that they were not
claiming Family Tax Benefit. Only 5% of cases make their own private
arrangements without using the Agency. Average private agreements
are higher than CSA assessments. There is no sign that ability
to make private agreements is producing bad results. Two lessons
have been learnt: don't be too theoretical when reviewing child
support policy. Retrospectivity is a nightmare and private agreements
are a good thing. The areas that now need to be focused upon are
enforcement and second families.
As soon as collection of child support gets
out of control, you lose it forever. The single most effective
collection method is direct debit from wages and also through
the tax system, but when child support debts are high, nothing
much can be done, primarily because most NRPs are on low income.
There is no permanent write off provision of debt—debts
can get bigger and bigger ad infinitum. The CSA needs access to
joint bank accounts. The cumulative debt (child support only—not
penalties) was $500 million in 1997 and $758 million by 2002.
Debt relates to 2.6% of payers.
The CSA are increasing the number of fathers
who have never had a relationship with their children. DNA testing
to prove parental status is a growing area.
The Australian income support system is not
affected by maintenance payments. It was claimed that it is not
worthwhile for the UK to persist with a system that takes benefit
pound for pound for child support payments, and has no incentives
to pay. The Australian system allows the first $30 of child support
to be kept by the PWC before income support is reduced. The Australian
system has a strong anti-poverty impetus compared with the UK
CSA, which will only get minimal public support if it continues
with returning the majority of child support payments to the government
and not to the child. In Australia, about $2,000 of a typical
child support payment to a PWC on income support is kept. This
is a powerful incentive for PWCs to pursue child support and for
NRPs to pay. However, not everyone agrees with the development
in Australia whereby one person in poverty must pay to prevent
poverty in another (ie, minimum payment from non-resident parents
on benefits).
An unintended effect of child support payments
was pointed out. Where there is a redistribution of benefits and
a reduction in the child support liability because of the level
of care of children by the NRP, this can lead to a push for shared
care for financial reasons and may not always be good for the
children. Only 2% of CSA cases involve a shared care arrangement
and there is a demand from NRPs for more contact time with their
children. There is a need for more contact centres to facilitate
this. The Taskforce will look into the issue of the costs of children
and costs of contact. Early findings from a pilot scheme show
that if you spend significant resources on mediation and parenting
skills to resolve contact and child support disputes, issues can
be resolved and maintenance paid.
It was felt that the CSA needs to have much
more concern regarding the welfare of children. In addition, the
public face of the Agency is very important. Much work has already
been done in terms of advertising the broader range of services
offered.
It was argued that the child support formula
will not solve child poverty and this point is a driver behind
the dissatisfaction with the child support system. Poverty needs
to be addressed more broadly through other social and welfare
systems. In addition, it was argued that it is probable that shared
care arrangements will increase and these will increase the costs
of raising children. Shifts such as this need to be anticipated
and action taken.
In Australia, the $5 minimum child support payment
for low-income NRPs that exists wasn't originally planned for.
The original idea was for it to fund a maintenance guarantee scheme,
that is, money redistributed back to PWCs who do not receive maintenance.
Yet the guaranteed maintenance scheme was not introduced. The
$5 minimum payment is not a way to get NRPs into the system early;
rather to educate them regarding child support responsibility;
and to facilitate higher payments once the NRP earns more.
Centrelink and CSA spent a lot of money on improving
their IT systems. The CSA and Centrelink have a linked IT system
and there is also a close relationship with the Australian Tax
Office in terms of sharing of information.
In summary:
— There is a big debate over whether
the conversion of private debt to debt to the Treasury was a good
thing.
— Enforcement of contact is a complex
problem.
— You need to return to basic values
and check that people think the child support assessments and
the scheme are reasonable.
— Child support is not just about money
but about perceptions of justice and values. It was recommended
that the UK government think about what needs to be achieved before
the CSA starts to be further reformed.
FRIDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER
2004
VISIT
TO A
CSA CENTRE AND
MEETING WITH
MR GEOFF
MUTTON, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR CHILD
SUPPORT CENTRE
The CSA staff are proud of the work that they
do and the Melbourne CSA centre has just a 6% staff turnover rate—the
lowest in the country. Staff are carefully recruited and have
eight weeks of training. It is 12 months before they are regarded
as fully functioning. That said, not everyone is comfortable saying
that they work for the CSA in public. All staff deal directly
with clients—even senior managers.
Their office has 25,000 new cases per year.
94% of new cases are registered within 14 days—mainly over
the telephone—this includes assessment. Eight years ago
it took six months to register a case. Both parents are interviewed
at the registration stage and NRPs are spoken to regarding compliance
issues.
Intensive case management means that all clients
have direct contact with a named staff member. There is now a
distinct focus on debt collection and collections per year now
outnumber the child support assessments.
Telephone calls from clients are quickly connected
and there is no staff time limit for calls. Very little work is
done in writing—most is telephone work. If a case is not
resolved within 14 days, another member of staff takes it over
to ensure compliance.
100 In this note the symbol $ refers to Australian
dollars unless otherwise stated. Back
101
Note: this was later found to be untrue at the meeting
with the CSA in Canberra. Back
| 
