Child Support System in Australia

The child support system in Australia is classified as part of services offered by the Australian Department of Human Services (DHS). The system has attracted criticisms from different groups in the country with the formula used to calculate child support attracting a larger share of the criticism. The paper evaluates the criticisms and controversies surrounding the system and outlines conclusions derived from the evaluation.

Running head: CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA 1
Child Support System in Australia
Name
Institution

CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA 2
Child Support System in Australia
Analysis of Literature on Child Support System in Australia
Primarily, the child support system in Australia is classified as part of services offered by
the Australian Department of Human Services (DHS). The central aim of the system is to
evaluate, collect, and disburse child support payments to aid separated parents (Cook, McKenzie,
& Knight, 2011). Following the interest that the system has generated across families in
Australia, scholars have conducted numerous searches on information pertaining to system in an
attempt to enlighten the public on what it entails. That said the current paper will conduct an
analysis of the literature child support system in Australia, and outline conclusions derived from
the evaluation.
Since the inception of the system more than 15 years ago, the Australian Child support
laws have attracted criticisms from different groups in the country with the formula used to
calculate child support attracting a larger share of the criticism. Young (2005) affirms that, while
there have been repeated calls for the reformation of the system, the government has managed to
implement the suggested recommendations on other sections of the laws while evading reforms
on the basic formula used to calculate support. The main claim in this report is that the system is
unknowingly forcing men into poverty through the system (Harden, 2002). This is because in
most cases of separation, the mother of the child is left to care for the child hence the father has
to pay support to assist the mother in caring to the child. In fact, a recent survey concluded that
86 percent of the child support recipients are females (O'donnell, Scott, & Stanley, 2008).
However, a closer look into the figures constituting the outstanding amount owed by the
government in regards to child support indicates that a majority of the men are not paying the
required amount to support their children (Smyth, & Henman, 2010). This information, thus,

CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA 3
denotes that if indeed men are not progressing financially, then the main impediment to their
progress is not payment of child support as the assertions by the public would like to suggest.
The formula used to calculate child support is determined by the courts, which highlight a
certain percentage that is calculated against the gross income of the parent in question, the
number of nights the child spends at the parent’s house, and income and age referenced costs of
the child (Smyth, & Henman, 2010). According to a report published by a parliamentary inquiry,
nearly 36 percent of child support payment cases require a payer to contribute 500 dollars or less
per annum which is equivalent to 1 dollar a day (Cook, McKenzie, & Knight, 2011). In view of
the changing economic times, the assumption that child support forces men into poverty would
appear to be true. However, the main cause of poverty is not child support as many would like to
insinuate rather changing economic times as well as other factors that are specific to an
individual such as job loss or poor pay.
Aside from the public, child support agency have also had their fair share of complains
regarding payment by the parents. Studies indicate that nearly a quarter of the paying dads do not
make their payments on time and when they do make the payments, they are either partial or
delayed(O’Hanlon, & Stevenson, 2005). Based on data collected in 2012, only 40 percent of the
recipient mothers have reported to having received full payment with the remaining 60
complaining of partial or delayed payment (Cook, & Natalier, 2013). These studies, therefore,
conclude that failure of making payment results in neglects on the child and the child’s
fundamental needs. According to the National Center for Social and Economic Modeling
(NATSEM), one in every five separated or divorced mothers has reported to not been able to
provide adequately for her children especially in regards to schools, leisure activities, and school
clothing (Moloney, Smyth, & Fraser, 2010). On the other hand, one in every fifty fathers makes

CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA 4
a similar claim. This goes to show that while fewer females are required to pay child support,
they are known to make full and timely payments in support of their children.
Seemingly, allocation of child support coincides with the family assistance scheme
referred to as reasonable maintenance action. The prerequisite dictates that for a parent to be
considered eligible to receive more than the minimum rate of the Family Tax Benefit (FTB) Part
A, he/she should be a recipient of child support (Mckenzie, & Cook, 2007). Certainly, the
scheme is a relief for low income earners as well as their children as they are able to able
reasonable maintenance support where it is deemed reasonable for them to acquire such support.
However, the issuance of the reasonable maintenance action is largely impacted by the failure to
pay child support or partial payment of support by payers. This is because of the discrepancies
evident between the amounts paid or not paid and books of accounts. That said recipient parents
are at risk of losing both rent assistance and FTB Part A as well as the necessary child support
(Mckenzie, & Cook, 2007). The situation would further be aggravated in the event of back
payments where by such amounts might reflect as higher amounts of child support leading to the
complete withdrawal of the FTB Part A and rent assistance. Therefore, as mentioned earlier,
payer should ensure that payments are made in time and in full in order to avoid such
occurrences.
Conclusions of the Derived Analysis
The introduction of child support system was without a doubt aimed at ensuring that
children of separated or divorced parents do not suffer neglect. However, since its inception, the
law has countered numerous criticisms, which have led several groups to propose changes that
would enhance the law. While the majority of the recommendations have been effected, the issue
of the standard formula used to calculate child support remains a major point of contention

CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA 5
(Moloney, Smyth, & Fraser, 2010). This then raises the question of whether or not the formula is
indeed unfair to the party required to pay support. However, the available literature further
disputes the claim with studies indicating that cost of child support is reasonably fair having been
valued at 1 dollar a day in a majority of the child support payment cases. That said the general
conclusion would be that families affected by the issues pertaining to the formula are majorly
low income earners, therefore, deductions to their pay leave them with an even lower income
(Smyth, 2009). Besides, with a contribution on 1 dollar a day, the child or children in question
are bound to suffer as the amount is merger and cannot meet most of the basic needs. This been
the case, then the calls for reforms are indeed credible and the government should source ways in
which they would be able to alleviate the pressure of child support on low income earners. Such
reforms would not only be beneficial to the parents, but also to the children who will no longer
have to suffer neglect.

CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA 6
References
Cook, K., McKenzie, H., & Knight, T. (2011). Child support research in Australia: A critical
review. Journal of Family Studies, 17(2), 110-125.
Cook, K., & Natalier, K. (2013). The gendered framing of Australia’s child support reforms.
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 27(1), 28-50.
Harden, N. (2002). Child support enforcement. Australian Family Lawyer, 16(1), 13.
Mckenzie, H., & Cook, K. (2007). The influence of child support and welfare on single parent
families. Just Policy: A Journal of Australian Social Policy, (45), 13.
Moloney, L., Smyth, B., & Fraser, K. (2010). Beyond the formula: Where can parents go to
discuss child support together?. Journal of Family Studies, 16(1), 33-47.
O’Hanlon, M. L., & Stevenson, C. (2005). Innovation at the Australian Child Support Agency.
Journal of Family Studies, 11(2), 197-204.
O'donnell, M., Scott, D., & Stanley, F. (2008). Child abuse and neglect—is it time for a public
health approach?. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 32(4), 325-330.
Smyth, B. (2009). A 5-year retrospective of post-separation shared care research in Australia.
Journal of Family Studies, 15(1), 36-59.
Smyth, B., & Henman, P. (2010). The distributional and financial impacts of the new Australian
Child Support Scheme: A ‘before and day-after reform’comparison of assessed liability.
Journal of Family Studies, 16(1), 5-32.
Young, L. (2005). Reforming child support laws: Breaking the cycle. Alternative Law Journal,
30(1), 29-33.