Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Plethora of Centrelink benefits....

only 25% are assessable by CSA for single parents

In trying to calculate just how much a single parent with 5 kids actually gets from Centrelink per year, it has come to my attention that it could be over $60k!!

CSA recognizes the $15k parenting payment, but does not take into account Fam Tax ben part A ($26k) Part B ($3k+), child care rebate ($5k), Rent assistance ($8k+) large family allowance ($830), Education Tax refund ($1500) child support ($6k).

I know this single parent will be claiming the max, so the above figures are fairly accurate.

Any thoughts on this, anyone??

Incorporated all this info in our last COA

My husband has had to pay for six children from his first marriage, and you can eliminate the child care rebate from that assumption, as people that extract this amount of money from the Government coffers basically have no intention to ever work…. as did my partner's ex wife. Her and the new hubbie have lived off Disability pension since they were married and only due to changes in the Centrelink has she gone to work 10-15hours per week, as the youngest child was older than 12.

You can also add on the $7,000 - $10,000 pa (averaged amount) that is paid in CSA to people like this who put their own financial interests ahead of that of their childrens.Then, to add insult to the system disallow the children to contact their father as reduced contact means greater ($).

The newer CSA system implemented does seem to take all this into consideration, as ex partner's last COA request (increase) was rejected, as I forwarded the court documents to them indicating the children should see their father every weekend (he hasn't seen them from 15yrs)! I also incorporated all the 'tax free' dollars the ex-partner was receiving from the Government, even though they don't consider this I still think it warrants mentioning, especially when the ex-partner has made very little attempt to obtain work in the past twenty years.

CSA has to be held more accountable for their decisions regarding payers and to stop discriminating against them. We recently informed them that my partner is now earning much less and they are just not interested, but if we were earning more they would be!
AJAE you've not included the other ancillary benefits viz, car registration fee waived, healthcare card (e.g. flu jabs free as opposed to $15 a go).

Hey and loads are getting off working by doing TAFE and Uni-courses via Fee-help.

At OUA, close to $1400 per quarter of Commonwealth money is given to a person to not work.

They can rack up Fee-help to over $70,000 (that's 12+ years of commonwealth supported bludgeing).

Of course that's not considering the cost of administering those who so willingly do not work and of course if you then look into the depth, you'll likely see other subsidiary socio-economic costs to the Commonwealth.
Kazscorpio, thanks for your input. It's all very intereresting. Only those who know how to work the Centrlink system avail theselves to all benefits. For the rest of us, it's another world.

Mike T - thank you for the advice on car rego, I had no idea but have will 'mention' it in our objection letter.

For the past few months I've been wracking my brain to figure out how we could know definitively what she earns from Govt benefits. Her COA app stated income of $**k (being only parenting payment) yet her expenses stated $**k - a shortfall of $30k which was not questioned by the SCO. So I bit the bullet and phoned FAO giving hypothetical details. According to them she earns exactly what her stated expenses were plus $2.  BINGO!  I then phoned the CSA asking if full disclosure was necessary in a COA, they suggested it was. When I questioned them about the $30k shortfall they advised that the SCO would not have disregarded that fact.  How many times have I heard CSA staffers defend the actions of SCO's?  Yet with a little research and investigation, I always manage to prove them wrong.  All this bo**ocks is costing the REAL taxpayers money.!!

Speaking of the Commonwealth paying… the rent assistance is to a mother who pays rent to her millionare parents for living next door in a semi detached rather large house in a most affluent suburb in Sydney. Seems all she needs is a lease document to claim. How messed up is that? CSA didn't question why the parents would charge their daughter 90% of her COA stated income in rent.

Seems to me these COA applications need to be scrutinized and substantiated before they leave the out tray.!!

Thanks for your time and help guys. This is an interesting issue, so let's keep it going if possible.


Last edit: by ajae

Ajae you raise a good point in this post. Many people rush into a COA with a thought that 'its not right'. While it may not be right people need to ensure that they go in with the evidence to support why it is not right. You mention:

"the rent assistance is to a mother who pays rent to her milloinare parents for living next door in a semi detached rather large house in a most affluent suburb in Sydney. Seems all she needs is a lease document to claim."

Imagine if you answered the telephone for your conference with the SCO knowing that you had already sent a copy of the land title or could provide the SCO with the Real Property number for the property that was being rented showing that it was the parents of the parent. Imagine the considerations you could raise, 'financial resource' for one.

It may only be a COA conference, but even still, the importance of participants preparing the case analysis of how they can prove 'it is not right' is just as important as it would be for any court proceedings. What is your case and how can you prove it. CSA will not do any background checking for you unless you show them where to look (i.e bank names or account numbers are even better) and give them overwhelming reason to look.

Whether you are bringing a COA or are on the receiving end of a COA there is one formula you need to know:

Issue + Documentary Proof = A better chance of success

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas
Uhhm, renting expensive property in an affluent suburb. If that were the paying parent then with very little doubt the paying parent would be expected to rearrange their finances to release the wasted income.Therefore, in accordance with the intention of the legislation, as per section 4,  I can see no reason why a recipient should not also be expected to rearrange their finances to meet their financial obligation to their child or children.

I'd suggest that the Ladd case, if I recall correctly, would support the non-application of finance reorganisation would be a point of law (re having to consider all subsections, rather than the ones that suit the purpose of the one given the power of the registrar to maximise the FTB clawback).
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets