return to menu


I don't intend to give any more than a few lines to the 2000/2001 Update analysis. I will let my ongoing analytical facts (STILL based upon CSA data) simply tell the sorry story.

1. As predicted, the CSA DID have to now include all those on $5 per week in their figures. What they have done, as seen, is to provide 2 sets of figures (God knows why?) with even the "low" figure still being a lie because it is based upon liability and not collection. The truth (derived again from THEIR figures) is that the average amount of child support per child has slipped from $32.40 in 1999 to $31.88 in 2000. However, with Peter Costello's GST impost slogging the CPI in his predicted one off slog, the comparison to the poo-hooded $25 per week "in the old days" is now looking very lean, with the $25 being now worth almost DOUBLE the present CSA figure.

2. The figure for those on the dole as a result of the CSA rose in the year to 236,000, that being a 23% increase in dole recipients in the CSA ranks, which ranks only rose by 16% in the year. Who knows what happened in 2001????

3. The "hit rate", ie the percentage collection of CSA registered liabilities DROPPED from 82% in 1999 to 74% in 2000. Considering that one third of these have their $5 per week taken BY CENTRELINK direct from their dole/disability payment (and these have no clawback at all), what use is there for the CSA?

4. The 4 million odd dollars for Legal Aid specifically targeted to increase CSA collection was no longer identified in the Update (ie we can assume it increased but was not quantified because of overall horrible results)

5. We have no idea how bad things got in 2001

return to menu