National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Submission to Australian Law Reform Commission  -  21st April 2011

The Executive Director

Australian Law Reform Commission

GPO Box 3708

SYDNEY NSW 2001

cwlth_family_violence@alrc.gov.au

Dear Executive Director,

The National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children Inc (NCSMC) are proud to present our

submission. The submission is in two-fold. The first part are the key recommendations (3) that

NCSMC considers as progressive, has merit and a capacity to positively respond to the matter of

family violence and child support. The second part is the response to the individual questions as

presented by the Australian Law Reform commission.

The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children has played a pivotal role since its

conception in the early 1970`s. The council has become a platform whereby both community and

government can communicate; it has lead the way in obtaining a range of beneficial outcomes for

families; has actively sought to reduce systemic prejudice; continually challenges existing norms, and

over many years has achieved improved opportunities and outcomes for single mothers and their children.

2

One of our greatest strengths is our expertise and commitment in working with and for the

advancement of women and children due to poverty, violence, exclusion and gender inequality.

NCSMC has advocated for equality of opportunity, financial security and access to justice, legal and human rights.

NCSMC would be available to provide oral evidence or offer any other information as requested.

Kind Regards,

3

The Child Support Reforms (2006) were a reaction to rang of political and social circumstances.

NCSMC is disturbed when opinions and assumption are used to seek and promote change. This is

particularly concerning when voices of differing population groups may exert greater or less

influence. It is the prevailing view that the child support reforms were in response to the men` voices

and in particular; high income non-resident fathers. The Australian Institute of Urban Research

stated that in 2003, reacting to continuing discontent with child support arrangements, particularly

from fathers’ groups, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community

It is NCSMC position that overt influence and domination of this group has unfairly influenced the

reforms as evidenced by the significant financial gains for non-resident high income fathers and a

reduction of income to the child’s primary residence. Furthermore, matters of debt, violence and

poverty which are often interrelated, and have now spanned the lifetime of the scheme, were not

addressed. NCSMC contends that we must look for, and seek different policy solutions and it is this

proposition which has influenced the submission.

Every Pictures Tells as Story report states, the starting point for the committee’s inquiry was that the

best interests of the child are the paramount consideration. NCSMC supports this principle and that

This would signal a clear expectation which would influence and shape policy, culture and processes.

Furthermore, the enforceable child support liability is determined by a formula which takes into

account the cost of children, the income of parents, family structure and circumstances of both the

payer and payee. Notwithstanding that NCSMC views the current formula as gendered bias; giving

greater weight to the cost of contact when compared to the cost of care. The requirement to pay child

support on time and on full should be primacy to the scheme and that child support it is not a

mechanism to continue or commence abusive practices.

1

Outcomes, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

4

It is within this context that three (3) key recommendations are presented for consideration. The recommendations are a response to combat the impact of
(a) child support debt,
(b) domestic violence; and
(c) poverty within the context of child support and violence.

(1) The Child Support Agency should ensure that the enforceable child support liability is paid to

the payee whilst the Agency collects the payments from the payer. This would immediately

remove the financial impact of no, late or sporadic payments upon the resident mother and her

child. Furthermore, it would sever the use of child support as an avenue to practice abusive and

controlling behaviour.

(2) That the government invest in a specialist Domestic Violence Team. This team would

respond and interact with a range of government services including the Child Support Agency the

Family Assistance Office and possibly the government agencies which are soon to form one

major Human Service organisation. This team would be the first point of contact for victims and

or survivors of domestic violence. This team would assume a range of responsibilities that could

include, but are not limited to, the following:

nominated government agency and how to obtain them.

organisations.

This team would be specialist team with best practice screening tools and a professional

background and expertise in domestic violence. The team would have complaint mechanism and

processes of review which are consistent with current government agencies.

5

(3)To develop a Domestic Violence Payment and Transfer Scheme.

This scheme would be premised upon the notion that perpetrators of violence should not be

financially rewarded for their criminal conduct whilst ensuring that agencies protect victims. Under

this proposal, perpetrators of violence would be required to make a financial contribution to this

scheme. The payment would not be child support but a domestic violence penalty and it would be

collected by a government department other than the Child Support Agency.

This proposal would remove the financial incentive for perpetrators as well as providing a revenue

stream that would be used to provide greater assistance to women and children. In support of this

proposition, NCSMC suggests that economic modelling should occur that takes into consideration

the economic cost of domestic violence for victims. The frequency of compensation / payments

could be elected by the victim / survivor of domestic violence.

Child Support Debt and Poverty

The financial circumstances of single mother led households and the increased risk of poverty and

deprivation is well documented. The Social Policy Research Centre identified certain population

groups that consistently face higher than average risk of poverty and stated that among family types,

single people and lone parents were at the highest risk. ACOSS who completed research into

deprivation and multiple deprivation stated that whilst 19% of the Australian population experienced

multiple deprivation, sole parents face a much higher risk of multiple deprivation with 49% of all sole

parents experiencing multiple deprivation. This level of deprivation was significantly higher for sole

McInnes in her research reviewed the impact of the introduction of child support scheme, along with

improvements in the social security system 10 years after the CSS had commenced. The research

found that when child support was paid it was effective in reducing poverty levels in single mother

households. McInnes noted the Australian Divorce Transitions Project which found that child

support payments reduced the rates of poverty amongst single mothers in the paid workforce from

2

6

24% to 10%. For single mothers on income support, child support reduced the poverty rate from 78%

In research undertaken by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) they found

a correlation between housing outcomes and child support payments. AHURI identified that there

were differences between resident parents and non-resident parents in their housing outcomes. A

prominent finding was the receipt of $75 per week in child support assisted resident parents living

apart to secure better quality housing for themselves and their children. Conversely, for non-resident

parents living apart, the payment of child support appeared to have no measurable effect upon the

Despite decades of formal audits, subsequent recommendations and additional funding such as the

recent Compliance Program ($165.1 million), child support debt continues to grow and by 2008-09 it

had increased by 11.9. The most recent figures availed to NCSMC confirm that:

The current system has a long history of failure in its duty to collect and transfer child support to the child’s primary place of residence.

Collection, Flinders University of SA.

4

housing outcomes, Southern Research Centre Swinburne-Monash Research Centre Queensland Research Centre

7

A specialist domestic violence team has the potential to overcome a range of identified structural,

cultural and systemic issues which currently exists. It is NCSMC opinion that such a team could have

the potential to address long-term universal issues relating to domestic violence. Contemporary

research which explored the matter of exemptions and child support, completed by Cook et el, is

consistent with the voices of women who contact NCSMC. Below are some of the findings of that

respond to domestic violence.

providers is affected by the attitudes and values of public bureaucrats as they exercise

discretion in policy implementation.

non-payment of child support by violent ex-partners and the poverty of single-parent victims

of abuse are also socially condoned through the enactment of the current policy.

them from ongoing forms of harassment and abuse.

exemption, the process of seeking an exemption was a personal and intrusive one and was a

reason as to why she decided not to proceed.

specialist team would have the capacity to be the one point of contact and engender higher

levels of trust):

deciding factor in the likelihood of obtaining child support for single parents.

National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc

National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc.

102a Ist Floor, Gawler Place ADELAIDE SA 5000 Ph & Fax: 08 8359 3586

8

receive assistance and support; however, they are limited in terms of the amount of

Information divulged to them, for example regarding the exemption option.

Support Agency but also Centrelink. This included the need to ask the ‘right’ questions in

order to get the desired information.

not worth the time involved.

Supporting victims and not perpetrators of Violence

perpetrators of violence should not be financially rewarded for their criminal conduct whilst

protecting victims. Under this proposal perpetrators of violence would be required to make a

financial contribution to this scheme. The payment would not be child support but a domestic

violence penalty and that it would be collected by a government department other than the Child

Support Agency.

This proposal would remove the financial incentive for perpetrators while providing a revenue stream

for the purpose of providing greater assistance to women and children. In support of this

proposition, NCSMC suggests that modelling should takes place to realise the economic cost of

domestic violence and that payments are made accordingly. The frequency of compensation could be

elected by the victim / survivor of domestic violence similar to Family Tax Benefit options.

McInnes in her research found that single mothers' access to non-market income and assets after

separation was extremely limited, however survivors of violence were likely to experience deeper,

longer-term economic disadvantage than other single mothers and that the income support system was

single mothers’ primary source of non-market income. This in itself produces poverty and

6

SeekingChild Support: Providing Safety or Legitimizing Ongoing Poverty and Fear, Social Policy

9

deprivation, and that single mother families face higher than average risks and contend with multiply

deprivation. Furthermore, children residing in a households headed up by a mother are 25% to 30%

rise due as more single parent families are transitioned from Parent Payment Single (PPS) to Newstart

allowance. It is estimated that 20,000 to 30,000 Australian families are now claimants of Newstart

allowance which is the equivalent to $34 per day.

McInnes also noted that child support; assets from the partnership and repartnering were the other

non-market avenues for single mothers to gain access to financial resources. However, the data

indicates that survivors of violence were less likely than other single mothers to access each of these

avenues, thereby increasing their risks of financial disadvantage and that violent men were reluctant

to divide assets and survivors were threatened out of making any claims. A perverse policy outcome

is that the use of violence is an effective approach to avoid child support obligations and property

division. Given that violence was the most common reason for separation amongst mothers in the

sample (McInnes), single mothers' poverty after separation, can be attributed in part to the widespread

successful use of violence by men to maintain ownership of property and income assets.

Violence was an effective strategy for men to gain economic advantages after separation by:

capacity to readdress the financial disadvantage experienced by victims of domestic violence whilst

reducing the financial incentive for perpetrators.

Collection, Flinders University of SA.

10

It is imperative that information and definitions of family violence are clearly articulated in

legislation which would provide clarity and transparency. Furthermore the legislation is a

foundation from which policy, practices, processes and culture are formed and implemented.

NCMSC supports the definition as recommended by the Australian Law Reform

Response and that this definition is available on all modes of communication including the

Child Support Agency website and that it is then consistently used for all government agencies.

Response to (a) and (b)

The child support agency commences from a deficiency of knowledge, practice and culture

when responding family violence as illustrated by the absence of definition and accessible

information. NCSMC also questions the amount of domestic violence exemptions

11

as it does not appear to reflect the level of women who are both victims of domestic violence

and clients of the child support agency with estimates that only 3% of parents with care are

NCSMC seeks the development of a specialist domestic violence team and that this team

would be required to screen, support and address issues of exemptions and other domestic

violence matters. This team would be the one ‘point of contact’ for victims removing the

requirement for them to continue to re-tell their situation and the capacity to build trust.

Single Mothers who are survivors or victims of domestic violence should not face the

additional barrier of financial disadvantage whilst perpetrators of violence should not be

financially rewarded which current exists. A domestic violence scheme such as our

recommendation 3 (page 5) should be explored as a possibility to address the coexistence of

violence and poverty.

Question 5 Should Child Support Agency staff be required to provide information about family

violence exemptions when dealing with applications for child support assessment?

Firstly, staff should be aware of the existence of exemptions and provide verbal and written

information as well as pointing out where the information can be readily obtained from the

website and other documents. Secondly, it would be preferable and an efficient model if the

Domestic Violence Team was external to the agency and could transact a range of

government agencies. Applicants could then receive an individualised and personalised

service to their unique and often complex circumstances.

12

This is a significant problem with the current system, whereby those who use violence, in

effect, receive financial incentive for their criminal behavior. Conversely, children are denied

the financial support for which they would otherwise be entitled to. The current system that

enables or forces women to negotiate directly with violent fathers needs to cease, and that the

CSA to have the power of reconciling the actual child support amount paid for all

agreements. NCSMC questions the validity of the CSA having targets or desired amounts of

customers that are private collect. NCSMC was recently contacted by a woman who after

several years of sporadic payment was told to ‘give him a chance’ as ‘he is trying’. She was

not aware that she readily opt out of a private agreement and seek an agency collect.

Perpetrators of violence should make a payment / fine to a domestic violence scheme such as

recommendation (3) as page 5.

Absolutely - perpetrators of family violence frequently use the child support system as a

means to continue their control over an ex-partner. Most often this is in the form of

withholding child support amounts, sporadic payments, using the need to follow up payments

as an opportunity to continue intimidation and violence. People who use violence should not

be rewarded for this behavior by being eligible to receive child support payments.

An outcome of the Child Support Reforms was the 24% discount for one night contact per

week; a significant financial incentive and perused irrespective of the presence of violence.

The AIFS stated that over 68% of lawyers interviewed as part of the evaluation agreed that

some potential child support payers are trying to get more care time with their children in

order to reduce their child support liability and that some payees are trying to prevent their ex

The Australian Institute of Families Studies

13

rectified, and reflective of the pre-reforms amount, NCSMC suggest that the need to pay

child support to a violent father would also diminish.

Yes – in complete support.

There are two key issues, the financial impact and the intersection of Family Law.

The interactions of the Family Law and Child Support systems have had unintended

consequences for women experiencing violence. Changes to the Family Law Act introduced

in 2006 (particularly misinterpretation of shared parental responsibility provisions) have lead

to the Family Law system awarding increased levels of care for children to violent parents.

Research confirmed that violence fathers were more likely to seek and receive equal care

Application forms for child support, including electronic versions, should seek information

about family violence. As outlined in the Issues Paper, this information may not be

volunteered as women: may not identify their experience as violence; may not be aware of

the relevance of raising the matter of violence; may be concerned about the response they will

receive and so not disclose. Furthermore, women who have disclosed domestic violence are

www.maypole.org.au

14

often not believed or there experience trivialized. It was found that only 40% of women

Inquiry should take place upon first contact with the agency and then at periods of change

such as opting out for a private collect agreement.

Both Child Support Agency and Centrelink staff should be required to inquire about family

violence to ensure that applicants are aware that provisions exist; but also to inform women

that these services are willing to discuss these matters and to deal with them. The

development of a specialist Domestic Violence Team would be well positioned to respond to this matter

separated poste-1995 and Post -2006), April 2010 p181, Bagshaw D; Wendt S; Campbell A; McInnes E; Tinning B; Batagol

B; Sifris A; Tyson D; Baker J; Fernandez Aria P.Family

15

Yes, but it should not be the only piece of information that informs and grants an exemption.

NCSMC supports in principle the ‘sharing of information’ as it would allow women to only

have to tell their story to one agency; and allow both agencies to have similar information.

Furthermore, the sharing of information must be done with the permission of the woman

concerned, and protections must be developed to ensure that this information is not further

relayed to the perpetrator. However, until there is a professional and well developed

knowledge of Domestic violence and the gendered nature of violence (once again illustrating

the benefits of a specialist Domestic Violence Team) NCSMC would be cautions about

providing full support for this proposition.

Overstating levels of care is one way that perpetrators of violence continue to abuse their expartner.

The 2006 changes to the Family Law Act have allowed this to increase in recent

years. Not only do mothers live in fear about their children’s safety, but reduced child

support payments exacerbate their level of poverty. A recurring theme is that ex-partners fail

to meet their care obligations, leading them to conclude that these ex-partners have claimed

increased care primarily to avoid the payment of child support. Likewise, there are parents

who claim that as they are paying child support, they do not have to provide for their children

even when they are in their care.

Women who have been victims of violence report that they are unable to correct these care

determinations due to fear of exacerbated violence or lack of resources to return to court to

get parenting orders changed.

Legislation needs to acknowledge this level of fear that can prevent accurate care

determinations, and the use of care determinations to continue intimidation. Where there is

disagreement regarding level of care, and family violence is present, the legislation should

allow for decision makers to err on the side of the victim.

16

Support Agency to verify actual care when parents dispute the care that is occurring, be improved for

victims of family violence?

Remove the responsibility for the victim of violence to have to do much of the work in

verifying levels of care. This once again illustrates the benefits of a specialist team who

could take on the role of gathering and establishing information.

No, the departure determination or the change of assessment is a mechanism that provides

control and abuse. The reasons for a COA are predominately used to reduce child support.

The forms are lengthy and intrusive with a requirement to have contemporary and

comprehensive financial knowledge of an ex-partner.

The CSA has capacity to self initiate COA – this capacity should be used where there are

matters of Domestic violence.

Yes. Questions should be asked about family violence at all stages of CSA involvement.

prior to initiating other proceedings or actions? If so, which proceedings or actions should this

requirement apply to?

Yes. Questions should be asked about family violence at all stages of CSA involvement.

17

The current scheme makes women choose between the financial advantage of child support

or the safety of them and their child. Significant changes need to occur and NCSMC has

suggested an alternative which is our recommendation as page 4 and 5.

Remove this as a requirement for victims of Domestic violence

The requirement to take reasonable maintenance action can result in exacerbated poverty for families

leaving violent relationships. Women frequently elect not to pursue child support to ensure there is

less contact with the violent ex-partner. However, in receiving no child support and only the base rate

of Family Tax Benefit they are severely financially disadvantaged.

Where family violence is disclosed, the child support system should not allow for private

collection of child support to occur.

As described above (in response to Question 6) when violence has been present and the

correct amount of child support is not being paid, the CSA should initiate an active and

immediate role. A financial penalty, in the form of a penalty rate or interest rate, should be

applied to unpaid child support amounts and gifted to the payee. However, if NCSMC

recommendation (1) one was adopted this matter would not arise

18

The safety of women and children must always be the main priority, and the woman is in the

best position to judge this. Her wishes must be the basis on which decisions are made, even

if this means the non collection of debt. Highly skilled and experienced advocates should be

available in both Child Support Agency and Centrelink to work with women on the

implications of any decision about child support debt or revocation of DPO. Women who,

due to fear of violence, are unable to pursue collection of child support debt, should receive a

payment from the government to make up for this loss of income.

Child Support debt in itself can be intended abusive practice and that the CSA should install a

culture that the collection and transfer of money should take primacy which would reduce the

magnitude of this matter.

Payers who have a child support liability should not be granted an extension for the lodgment

of taxation as non-lodgment debt and or a family tax debt can be incurred by the payee, who

had no control over the debt and its collection. This adds an additional layer of distress on

top of poverty and violence.

Question 25 In cases where victims of family violence are subject to pressure to enter into child

that:

(a) independent legal advice must be provided; or

(b) annual child support assessments may not be decreased sufficient to protect victims from entering

into disadvantageous agreements, and if not, what reforms are needed?

Victims of family violence should not be pressured into support agreements as they are well

place to predict the response of a violence ex-partner. NCSMC confirms that

recommendation (3) would again provide merit in addressing this circumstance.

19

The CSA has a duty of care and that this should be elevated and take precedent over the

requirement to dissolve information.

Furthermore, the provision of information between parties during the various child support

processes is an area of concern for victims of violence. An enormous amount of information

is required to be provided (particularly in Change of Assessment applications) including

about their own circumstances. Women report being asked, for example, to provide copies of

bank statements, which are then shared with the other party. Bank statements include a

person’s address details, along with the names of the places they shop. Pay slips include, at

minimum, the name of the employer.

The CSA may block out address and bank account numbers on these documents when they

have been informed that violence is present. However, women are rightly concerned that

other information that may identify their location (eg where they shop, work, children’s

activities) is still evident on these documents. As a result many choose not to continue with the process.

Regarding the COA, the CSA will remove abusive language (mostly through white ink and

then forward a copy of the COA with words or phrases removed). NCSMC contends that a

form which has already been identified as ‘abusive or offensive’ and then modified (by CSA)

should not be accepted by the agency and that any delay should not impact upon the other parent.

Question 27 Are victims of family violence adequately protected by the Child Support Agency’s

procedures to deal with threats made to the Child Support Agency against them by family members?

What reforms, if any, are needed to protect victims where family members make threats against them

to the Child Support Agency?

NCSMC is not aware of the procedures and have not had any contact with women who have

been protected by such procedures. It is interesting to note that the CSA has a ‘write only’ as

a way of protecting agency staff. from abusive clients. NCSMC questions how this

20

identification then translates into protection for CSA clients. The CSA response to violence

and abuse appears disjointed and problematic.

Question 28 Is the personal information of persons at risk of family violence adequately protected by

Child Support Agency practices, such as the Restricted Access Customer System? In what ways, if

any, can the protection of personal information be improved?

No, disclosure of personal information is problematic as identified in response to question 26.

Victims of violence should not be in fear that information will be provided to the other

person. To this end, where forms go between clients should not be contained personal and identifying information.

Please see our three recommendations on page 4 and 5.

Additionally, having resources greatly supports all women but in particular women who have born an

additional economic cost due to domestic violence. NCSMC would like to highlight two additional

recommendations that would aide women.

(a) Maintenance Income Amount

recommendations including recommendation (9.3). This recommendation had identified the

anomalies of ‘claw back’ amounts which are known as the Maintenance Income Test. These

arrangements are unfavourable for single parent household when compared to that for two

parent families. Currently, when child support is received the Family Tax Benefit A is

reduced by 50 cents in the dollar for low threshold amounts commencing at $1,368.75 per

financial year, (as illustrated in the table below) until the payment reaches the base rate of

www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/factors/maint_inc_test.htm

21

Status

Child support

received

(per year)

Single parent or member of a couple receiving maintenance $1,368.75

Couple, both receiving maintenance $2,737.50

For each additional child add $ 456.25

However, a two parent family may receive income of up to $45,114 for the financial year

which will then gradually reduce by 20 cents for each dollar above $45,114 until the payment

reaches the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A. As affirmed throughout this submission

financial disadvantage is compounded with and through domestic violence. All avenues that

(b) The self-support amount;

The equalising of the self-support amount is the amount that parents can earn before it is

taken into account for the calculation of the child support formula. The equalising was

adopted irrespective of the level of care that a resident mother maybe providing and how the

role of principle carer impacts upon the capacity to engage with the labour market. Women

who are surviving domestic violence are less likely to be engagement with the labour market

and although there are some domestic violence clauses the labour market has not

implemented a national standard to respond to this matter. This disadvantage of assuming the

principle carer and contending with violence is then compounded with this reduction.

NCSMC views this as a signal of undervaluing the cost, contribution and impacts of being the

principal carer and notes that in Germany the principal carer have all of their income

disregarded. A progressive and appropriate outcome would be to reinstate the disregarded

income amount for resident parents at the pre-reform level of $45,000 in recognition of the

22

direct and indirect costs associated with providing a home and all or the majority of care. It is

15

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/childsupport/pubs/CostsofChildrenUsingAusStandards/Pages/Introduction.aspx