09/10/2019
So there is a lot of media about a review into family law and the inclusion of child support.
I have been watching and reading Politicians and Family law experts who are invited to TV to speak as experts and often they do not even have a basic understanding of how it works now, an example being I watch a family law say there as been no substantial change since 1989?? Well in 2008 huge changes were made some good some bad I think but they were huge and throughout the years many changes have happened. In this same interview the expert said a payer should be able to start overtime or take on a second job after separation and it not be included in the calculation for payment, well this happens since 2008 but is limited to three years and is called Post Separation Income, perhaps this person may have been better off to call for an extension to this rule.
Some things I think they should consider which are simple and would make a difference as there will always be one side of this who feels like the system sucks, so the system needs to reflect our core issues.
1 Now in reviewing the current rules it is important to understand the following, the system has a primary purpose to reduce the amount of FTB the government pays single parents.
2 The system is not in anyway addressed well during the split and considered against settlement outcomes - i.e. you can loose all assets, the kids and more then be sent a bill versus utilising the current rules to have an agreement for a reduction or nil payment in lieu of handing over money and property, perhaps it would be better that no settlement agreement can occur with mandatory recognition that child support payments have been considered when settling.
3 Connected to above perhaps more people should be able through settlement to nominate how much and how child support should be paid and if within a % of CSA assessment should be accepted as their payment, can be to third parties like schools, medical and cash and the government for FTB A will use CSA notional assessment as it does now for agreements to set FTB A payments on so the community and parents and children are all considered. These could be revisited every three years again with parents negotiating before Govt formula applies (noting of you do not want to then default system kicks in)
4 The change of assessment needs to be taken back in time a little - This is often the place I hear the most grief about from payers and payee's and commonly reason 8. This reason was designed for avoiders (not payers) avoiders on both sides of the equation but slowly has been transformed to be used for everyone who gets an extra dollar or two. There needs to be some additional rules here where a PAYG with no minimisation or significant non taxable payments cannot go in this process i.e. Someone getting a new job, return to workforce, pay rise one off bonus should not be in this process and should be assessed following normal tax lodgement- for a payer or payee.
5 I think also here parents who get injury and or other compensation payments should have a standard way to be treated - i.e. If you get 300K it needs to be apportioned over the years of income it replaces. So if I am 40 get hurt and can never work again and get 500K it should be used as an income of $20 k per annum until 65 as this is what it represents - A person being hit maximum CS for this is not aligned as this money often pays of mortgages and or is needed to set up income stream as this person may not be entitled to Centrelink etc.
6) The current formulas despite how people feel about them were based on what Australians spend on their children (based on parents gross income their net spend) which is reflective of cost (does not mean we all do this) however the gap this review needs to do is understand the impact on separated families and spending - although unpopular it is clear that people financially suffer through separation thus reducing the lifestyle standard of them and the children -
7 Not at fault assessment changes - A child assessment should not increase where there payee stops work for a new child (new partner), as the payer cannot financially plan to support their children based on their ex partner having new children - Challenge here is what happens if the payer has a new child? I would suggest here the assessment should remain again while maternity leave payments available and then once complete they can be set up as unemployed or use their return work income - As if often the case with CS one rule will never work in 100% of cases.
8 The Prescribed non agency payments changes in 08 should be changed back so that essential costs spent on children by a payer can be considered despite care level
9 If we want to call for CO breaches of care to be considered there must be a process which can prove fault. I say this as a payer who stops voluntarily seeing their child should not be able to stop paying as they have a CO that says they should have contact, however there does need to be provision for someone who is prevented without a court or child protection issue (legal body) showing cause - So I feel where someone says they do not get access they should be able to use Centrelink offices to do child handover (even after normal business hours) and then if payee fails to present with children only then should there be no increase to CS and potential benefits impacts - if payer fails to come to pick up then Payee should have CS increased and continue benefit entitlement - and this would take more $ from govt to man but seems like a simple resolution.
8 More people to enforce non compliance - CSA is often told they do nothing, or advice is incorrect, give them more $ to train and staff the system more time to chase and more time to make sure people are not over assessed and it is applied based on the intent, call wait should not be 40mins, CoA should be thorough and payers need to be told their rights so payment is easier to do and not over or under pay.
I think there is a lot more that can be done - but please read and learn the system as knowledge will bring about effective change.
