A shocking revelation has emerged, exposing a government agency's deliberate disregard for the law over a six-year period. This scandal, uncovered by a federal watchdog, highlights a critical issue that remains unresolved, despite the agency's awareness of its non-compliance.
A Broken System: The Child Support Laws
Services Australia, a government entity, became aware of its non-compliance with new child support laws in 2019, as revealed in a damning report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Department of Social Services was informed a year later, yet no legislative action has been taken to address this issue.
The government's longstanding policy states that parents with 35% or less custody of a child are not entitled to child support. However, laws passed in 2008 and 2018 inadvertently created a loophole, technically allowing some parents in this category to receive payments. Despite the social services department acknowledging these as "unintended consequences," no legislation has been introduced to rectify the problem.
Iain Anderson, the Ombudsman, expressed his frustration, stating, "It's unacceptable for public service agencies to decide which parts of the law to apply or ignore." He added, "Six years have passed, and the issue remains unaddressed."
The Department of Social Services, led by Secretary Michael Lye, pledged in November to prioritize legislation to fix this "anomaly." The government spokesperson confirmed this week that the legislation is in its final drafting stages and will be introduced in February when parliament reconvenes.
However, the Ombudsman's report found that both the department and Services Australia failed to take appropriate action to rectify the issue earlier. Multiple attempts to amend the legislation over the past six years have not progressed significantly.
Services Australia's decision not to implement the new laws was based on concerns that doing so would lead to outcomes deemed "unfair and nonsensical," contradicting the government's policy. The agency only notified the Ombudsman's office of the issue in July, while the relevant ministers, Katy Gallagher and Tanya Plibersek, received detailed briefings late last year.
The Ombudsman highlighted a failure in the duty of agencies to inform the ministers promptly after identifying a significant issue. Anderson compared this to the Robodebt scandal, where public servants also decided to disregard the law, albeit with more severe consequences.
"In the case of Robodebt, public servants chose to ignore the law despite the negative impact on people. Here, the agencies had valid concerns, but it's not up to public servants to decide whether to comply with the law," he explained.
Robodebt was an automated system that used a faulty algorithm to demand welfare recipients repay debts they didn't owe, affecting thousands.
Services Australia has identified at least 16,600 people affected by the discrepancy between the child support laws and the policy. The debts involved range from $60 to $10,000.
"This is an example of an agency believing the law is producing the wrong outcomes but failing to take action to fix it. When it comes to child support, it's crucial that incorrect outcomes are corrected," Anderson emphasized.
Approximately 1.2 million separated parents have support arrangements, with one parent paying the other to assist with the costs of an estimated million children. Services Australia is responsible for about half of these arrangements through the child support program.
The Ombudsman issued six recommendations to the department and Services Australia, all of which have been accepted. A government spokesperson stated, "The Albanese government is committed to ensuring the child support scheme operates in the best interests of children. It's a longstanding principle that parents with less than 35% care of a child should not be eligible for child support."
A separate investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman last year found that the child support system had been exploited for financial abuse, with Services Australia "amplifying" this abuse. This abuse included parents not making payments, hiding income by not filing tax returns, lying to reduce income, and using abusive or violent tactics to prevent a parent from seeking help.
This scandal raises important questions about the role of public servants and the need for accountability. Should public servants have the discretion to decide which laws to follow? How can we ensure that the child support system operates fairly and effectively? These are issues that deserve further discussion and debate.
