Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

CSA Policy - Integrated with Other Government Policies

The issue of seeing a more complete picture that just CSA policy. How does it fit in the BIG picture?

It has concerned me that the historical roots of CSA are in the seventies - when there were a number of conditions in Australia which are completely different to the current situation. I really question the sense of the current approach.

In the past:

1) Females were not expected to work, have careers or provide for themselves - if they did work they could retire earlier and get pensions earlier

2) Males were expected to provide for the family

3) Marriage meant forever (we had yet to embrace the USA divorce rate)

4) Mothers were considered to be the parent

5) Marriage breakdowns happened for many reasons - including infidelity

6) The terms 'dead beat dads' , 'deserted wives' and the like were starting to used

7) Social security payments were going through the roof

The government was trying to address the social security problem by a number of ways:

a) getting more people to work - the 'dole bludgers'

b) Training people so they could work

c) Encouraging more females to get careers and removing barriers to that

From my point of view what we have seen since that time is a series of uncoordinated policy measures which have built up over time to become the mess we see now - large legislation, government agencies, court cases, confusion, complexity.

The justification used for that build up is:

1) The world is more complex now

2) we are building a better system

I actually would question that justification. Is there any evidence to suggest that the whole system is better?

Some current facts:

1) Social security payments still high - about the same rate as the 70's

2) Less than half the population work at all, females - if they work at all mainly work part time - they still retire earlier and get pensions earlier

3) Divorce rates high, marriage rates down, births down (below replacement rate)

4) More lawyers and wealth in the legal industry - (hence more money spent on legal matters)

5) Male suicide rates unchanged

6) Female health improving at greater rate than male health

It seems to me its time for a bit of a rethink.

Less than half the population works and this will get worse as we age.

Any look at CSA needs to been seen in the context of society as whole.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
I hate to be cynical, but does anyone else reckon CSA was put into place because the incoming govt was horrified at the money spent on the "single mother's pension" as it was then?

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 

HREOC - It's About Time

It's About Time by HREOC

ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sex_discrimination/its_about_time/

This is a shameful piece of work designed to give women more money from the government - taxpayers (mainly working men)

Its breathtaking in its obvious bias and misuse of statistics and logic.

Its key theme is as follows:

- People care for others and do 'unpaid' work.

- Caring is unpaid work and so is household work.

- Caring is for old people, disabled, mentally ill and children.

- Women do more household and 'unpaid' work.

- Pay women for caring - give them money, superannuation and tax credits.

It turns a small minority of deserving support (already covered by centerlink payments) for people caring for the disabled , into a statement that child care and household work requires monetary support from the government.

Additionally its states that women have less superannuation than men - which ignores the following facts:

1) If they are in a partnership they have access to the assets and money in a partnership

2) If their partner is dead they inherit all the assets and super

3) If they divorced they got 50% of the assets - house, mostly the children, CSA and super anyway

A full assets accrual, government money received, CSA received, court settlements awarded analysis shows women by far get the most ALREADY for not working. And they live longer to enjoy it.

It ignores that people who are partners make choices about who works and who supports the children based on the earning capacity of the partners (and their desire to buy a house) and generally men earn more than women (as they are more qualified and work longer hours).

Its recommendations are aimed to advantage:

1) Single mothers

2) Divorced women with children

3) Single women who don't work

It also features some breathtaking ignorance of the groups it aims to protect i.e. disabled, ethnic, aboriginal background, youth. E.g.

Recommendation 11
'… especially women with disability, young women, women from culturally and linguistically diverse and indigenous backgrounds ..'

completely ignoring disabled MEN, young MEN, MEN from.

Recommendation 20
'.. assist women with workplace negotiation ..'

NOT Disabled MEN, young MEN, MEN from.

And more.

The point is this - IF AN ORGANISATION SET UP TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS IS SO BLATANT IN ITS IGNORANCE OF THE DISADVANTAGED GROUPS PROTECTED BY IT OWN LEGISLATION TO CONCENTRATE SOLEY on WOMEN then it is either:

a) Incompetent (and this is their final report);

b) Completely biased; or

c) Both of the above.

This is organization which seems to need a good broom through the lot of them - if it should exist at all.

While the report acknowledges PRU GOWARD it does not acknowledge WEL who worked hand in hand with PRU to develop the 'pay women for doing unpaid work framework'.

Major shapers of this piece for work include EVA COX and MICHAEL FLOOD.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
When I was caring (while working and a single Mum) for my Dad who died recently of dementia, I saw many MEN in their 50s caring for their Mum or Dad. They were taking Snr along to all their appointments.

I hope they were savvy enough to claim a carer's pension.

Surely people who craft legislation are aware that they should be saying "people" or "person".

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Posts from this topic have been moved by members. 1 posts have been transferred to topicview.

Last edit: by OneRingRules


Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 

Bias in HREOC report title

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sex_discrimination/its_about_time/

Even the title of this HREOC report shows a bias favouring women over men:

"It's about time: Women, men, work and family - final paper 2007"

Typically we say "men and women", as we similarly say "ladies and gentlemen".

To title the report "women, men" is to deliberately adopt a feminist phrasology and reflects an underlining feminist bias seeking to advantage and privilege women.

Also, have a look at all the submissions on this issue.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sex_discrimination/publication/strikingbalance/submissions/index.html

Read this report to see how the lobby groups influence government bodies to get what they want

This report is worth a read just to see how the lobby groups influence government bodies to get what they want. It's well crafted in language and structure but because it comes from people with their own built in bias - it inevitably shows in some parts of the document.

I suspect many government members who read this report (or should I say their staff) will be too ignorant and uncaring of the lack of bias of the document or be predisposed to the biased views anyway.

What is clear is its intent - GIVE MORE MONEY TO CARERS i.e. PEOPLE WHO CARE FOR CHILDREN and PEOPLE WHO DO UNPAID WORK

The concept being this needs to be respected and rewarded.

The real point being - the people who do this either:

1) Choose to because they can or have to

2) Get support ALREADY from the government from centerlink , their partner or their own work and investments

Other aims of the report are:

1) MANDATE how MEN & WOMEN should spend their time

2) Ignore the role of healthy relationships and partnerships and people supporting each other

Another feature is the social issues with large cities, travel time, resources, lack of community.

The howard government , more than any other, dismantled the bush, small town and regional areas concept in preference for ever increasing populations in Sydney. This combined with the housing boom, the desire for wealth and profit and the lack of a social policy (ethics, morals,etc) lead people to the place they are now in. - higher costs and longer travel time, less time for children, emotional and financial stress, overextended in housing investment (shares as well), etc. That's their choice - but the government didn't help with community infrastructure.

This report is flawed and shows the greed and lack of care that these groups have for society as a whole - it reflects the blatant grab for money that has dominated the last couple of decades - in particular by female lobby groups - without regard of the impact on the rest of society - i.e. men, youth, children, etc.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
I always felt feminism and JWH past government and odd fit.

JWH wanted women home, barefoot and pregnant (and off the unemployment stats).

It was odd to see feminists play into this, as long as they were getting well paid to stay home and do this.

As a single mum, you were much better off trying to milk the ex, than get anything out of centrelink or the FAO.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
You may be right - I suspect the choices for females on how to get money and make a living are far more complicated than those available to males ;) .

As an ex ABS Labour Force Survey person i know quite well the history and definitions of employed and unemployed and the changes since the seventies.

The point about centrelink is that the budgets for the last 30 years have the roughly the same percentage of money going to social security  every year. If there is more employment - it does not show in a reduction of government outlays.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Those are interesting statistics. Until you start counting how many people want to work (like women that are stay-at-home and men over 50 who can't find work), you wont really know.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 

Mothers encouraged to stay out of work

Mothers encouraged to stay out of work
By Adele Horin
July 22, 2005


Australian mothers have one of the lowest employment rates in the developed world, encouraged to stay at home through generous welfare payments and community expectations, says an international expert.
Dr Peter Whiteford, principal administrator with the OECD's social policy division in Paris, said this needed to change. Australia was unique among 21 countries in the OECD for its concentration of unemployment among people with children.
The low employment rates of both lone and partnered mothers were similar to levels in Greece and Spain, but out of step with the rest of Europe and the US.
"Australia is one of the few countries where only half the women with two children have paid employment," he said. "Being a mother in Australia reduces employment compared to men the same age in a much more spectacular way than elsewhere."
Dr Whiteford, formerly in the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services, addressed the Australian Social Policy Conference at the University of NSW yesterday.
In an interview, he said Federal Government plans to compel sole parents to find work when their youngest child was six were in line with European countries, many of which required work participation when a child was three.
He believed Australian women should be required to look for work when their children were younger than six to minimise the impact on their employment prospects and wages.
However, he said the Government should not cut the benefits of sole parents as it proposed to do - through shifting them from the Parenting Payment to the lower Newstart Allowance. And it should guarantee them an affordable child-care place.
"In Australia the system has encouraged lone parents and unemployed couples to stay out of the workforce for up to 16 years on benefits; the likelihood of getting a job after that is much reduced," he said. "Child poverty rates fall considerably when lone parents get jobs."
At the same time, payments such as Family Tax Benefit Part B, paid to single-income families, needed to be reviewed because they fostered expectations that mothers could stay out of the workforce for long periods.
Dr Whiteford, who was not speaking on behalf of the OECD, said Australia's welfare system was in line with most countries in the grouping. It was the most targeted, probably in the world, and delivered reasonable benefits to the poor in a way that minimised the tax take.
But contrary to claims of critics from the right, the problem of "churning" - providing government payments only to recoup them in taxes - was much less in Australia than elsewhere.
In its payments to families with children, Australia was more generous than Sweden. But the system appeared to provide incentives for mothers to stay out of the workforce at a time when a high proportion of marriages ended in separation, intensifying the chances of child poverty and old-age poverty among women.
Dr Whiteford said the challenge was to promote greater employment among mothers without increasing the burden on them.


Last edit: by bugsiboy

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets