return to menu

UPDATE - 2004

This is the latest update on the deplorable Key Performance Indicators derived from simply analysing THEIR obfuscational figures and reporting them fairly and factually. Please do not confuse it with imitations by MRA and PIR who have been trying to copy [without credit] my Reports since inception and flog them to the boo hoo brigades in so called mens groups as being THEIR work.

The story so far is the CSA got caught with its pants down by my earlier reports herebelow on their performance up to 2000. They shit blue lights and then tried to hide future "Facts & Figures" reports at their web site, albeit that their charter requires such reports to be undertaken. In any case I have now found the report for financial year 2003/2004 and have given it a similar analysis as for earlier years.

The reason for concern by the CSA was that the average child support per child in 2000 had slipped to $31.88 per week [by analysis of the CSA 2000 Report], AND that the claim that CSA actually HELPED the taxpayer was a big fat porkie. But in fact I had made a mistake in that analysis by giving a sucker [defrauder] an even break by including private collect in the figures. As seen by the 2004 CSA Report they are trying to save their arses [in an ATSIC type manner] by falsifying private collect data so I will simply treat CSA now as a collection agency and report their performance on that KPI, as I started doing in 2003


Is it fair to call the bluff of the CSA and analyse their performance as a collection agency only? In my submission the answer must be "yes" simply by considering the OVERALL performance of the CSA as per my last report. As stated $31.88 per week per child is only half of their OWN benchmark of $30 per week per child BEFORE the CSScheme [which now equates to some $70 pw with CPI increase - and $140 pw if one was to use the CSA Hestia Factor].


There can be little doubt in my submission that the CSA read and reacted to my former Reports [herein] on their Reports. Their 2003 report tries a different method to cloud the former lies by now reporting some formerly hidden "facts" up front at page 6 in "Child Support Scheme - Key Facts and Figures". In this way an "uninformed" person such as a chartered accountant might just use the CSA figures of $1,944 million "transfers" and 1,034,593 kids [ie stage 2] and come up with $36.13 pw per kid. However a more astute person [ie NOT a chartered accountant] would simply look behind these figures for the truth.

The first giveaway is that the 2003 total figure of $1,944 million has been severely boosted by a private collect figure of $1,272 million, leaving the CSA collect figure of $672 million looking decidedly poor. It will be immediately evident to all [except chartered accountants] that nobody COULD possibly know how much was transferred privately, and to quote the very words of those who argued FOR the CSScheme, this very fact WAS the reason we NEEDED a collection agency.

In effect what is happening here is the same as for the banks who sought short term profit by shutting down branches [as suggested by their chartered accountants?] but reached the so called law of diminishing returns when the so called "chickens came home to roost". If this sounds like code then please do your own analysis of the figures and you will find the CSA has virtually assumed ALL private collect DID collect. This has two nasty aspects for future years and CSA longevity. Firstly the CSA has "sold all remaining branches" by 2003 and secondly IF private collection IS 100% effective then why the Hell did we need a CSA in the first place.

In any case, as set out above, the rules have now changed and we are now putting the CSA under the blow torch WITHOUT any helping hand from "responsible parents" who simply support their children privately. Could this failure by the CSA be the reason for dropping their ridiculous motto of "helping parents in their CSA responsibility"

So by a proper analysis of the CSA collect figures the average rate has now risen from $22 pw per kid to about $29 pw per kid. However there are some new sneaky bits so the figures may be distorted upwards. For example you will note that the overall hit rate [which they only give as cumulative] shows an alarming increase up to 89% by 2004, and if you extrapolate the 2004 figure it is 99.5% hit rate. So what that means is the huge increase in Order 33 Enforcement Summons actions have inflated the 2004 total collections by including [phantom] debts from past years, under threat of life in jail. Therefore perhaps about $25 pw per kid is the extent of the CSA effort in 2004, now only 40% of what was paid [by CSA own admission] BEFORE the CSScheme


I said last year:

So how does this deception relate to the bottom line of CSA, ie the "ATSIC Factor". The CSA now simply pass the buck to Centrelink and quote a clawback of $433 million, and compare that to some $240 million to run the CSA. But if we look at the clawback for CSA only we find that it is only possible for there to be $180 million in FTB type A clawback, and of course as before we have the qualification that maybe half of that is for "income testing" and not "maintenance income testing" of the FTB. One only has to look at the figures in CSA Table 5.2 to see that 60% of CSA collect payers pay less than the amount required to trigger clawback at all. So the figure in Table 7.2 saying CSA actually MAKES $193 million is a total fabrication and a big fat lie.

Well folks looks like "for legal reasons" [ie misfeasance in public office] this year they have declined to even attempt to fabricate a figure at all, simply remaining silent as to any clawback. And as I said on numerous occasions THAT is the biggest fraud of the CSScheme, ie that it does NOT do as intended and shift the support of kids from taxpayer to parent. The taxpayer pays AS WELL AS THE DAD, and CSA has now admitted this by their silence.

So there it is folks, while no [normal] kid is allowed to live in poverty in Oz, those victims of the FLIndustry have to live on $25 per week.

return to menu