Government spends $500,000 fighting $6000 child support dispute

nick-xenophonThe Department of Human Services has spent more than half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money in legal fees fighting a child support dispute over $6000.

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says the case is a “scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money … to protect the butt of the department”.

Now the department, which runs the Child Support Agency, Centrelink and Medicare, has hired more high-end lawyers to try to block the release of information on its own conduct in the matter, exposing taxpayers to up to a million dollars in legal and other costs.

Child Support Agency bosses have spent the money despite knowing, since August 2011, that their public servants broke the law in the man’s case and were on shaky legal ground from the beginning of the dispute.

DHS has been ordered by the government’s information watchdog to hand over a briefing it prepared for its minister, along with other documents, but the department has hired top-end lawyers Clayton Utz to fight the decision of the Australian Privacy Commissioner.

Throughout the three-year legal battle with the father, a determined litigant known simply as “DT” because of strict Family Court rules on identifying parties, Human Services have tried to resist handing over documents to the court and defied orders to release information to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

Transparency and accountability at Human Services, the government’s largest department, has been under fire since a report by the Information Commissioner revealed an organisation obsessed with process, that preferred legalese to plain English and had increasingly lost sight of its duty to share information.

The report shows that full freedom of information disclosures at the Department of Human Services have halved over the past three years. It also identified “negative trends” in DHS processing of FOI requests between 2011-12 and 2013-14.

During that period, the department increased its use of the “practical refusal” mechanism in the FOI Act from 33 to 777 occasions. There was also a decline in the number of FOI requests to which access to documents was given in full, from 58% to 26% of requests.

And the report identified an increase in the number of applications for Information Commissioner review of the department’s access refusal decisions, from 49 IC review applications in 2011–12 to 95 in 2013–14.

Human Services receives more FOI requests than any agency aside from than the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

As of April this year, DHS had paid more than $500,000 to defend the DT case and refuses to say what has been spent since.

New South Wales Labor Senator Doug Cameron has slammed the secrecy of the department. “The command-and-control structure in DHS, in my view, is just crazy,” Cameron said.

“You ask questions at [Senate] estimates and obviously lots come back trying to avoid the question but that’s not something new to the public service. But I did ask a question on the computer system and a complete cloak of silence was thrown over the issue. I was told I would get a briefing and when the briefing came they told me they couldn’t tell me anything.”

Cameron has urged Human Services Minister Marise Payne to play a more active role in developing a culture of transparency at the department.

The department refused this week to say how much taxpayers’ money was being paid to Clayton Utz for the latest legal manoeuvre but a spokeswoman insisted the department was justified in another round of legal action to keep documents suppressed.

“Matters are generally appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where the decision being appealed contains an error of fact or an error of law,” the spokesman said.

“As this matter is subject to ongoing litigation, the department will not be providing further comment at this time.”

Senator Xenophon has been trying to use Senate estimates to get answers on the spending on the case, but his questions have been taken on notice, with Human Services then refusing to answer, citing “confidentiality”.

“This is bureaucracy gone mad and now they’re refusing to answer how much has been involved,” Senator Xenophon said.

“Taxpayers should expect a better response than this, they are hiding behind confidentiality and it seems a cowardly way to avoid accountability.

“This seems to be a scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money for no good effect other than to protect the butt of the department.”

Financial Advice: Where to get it for Free

free-financial-adviceFinancial advice doesn’t have to cost you a fortune. In fact, much of it is free if you know where to look.

Be aware of the free options before you fork out hundreds or thousands of dollars for advice on budgeting, property, investment, superannuation or estate planning, but remember that in many cases you get what you pay for.

A financial planner might charge an hourly rate of $220, an accountant anything from $200 and a solicitor $250 an hour or more, so you’ll want their words to be worthwhile.

Here are some sources of advice that won’t cost you a cent.

Financial Counsellors

If you have money problems, you can speak to a financial counsellor for free. Financial Counselling Australia says these qualified professionals work within community organisations and provide “non-judgmental information, support and advocacy”. Telephone 1800 007 007.

The Internet

Most financial services companies’ websites are packed with free information to help you make money decisions.

“Everything you need to know these days is on the internet, but there’s also a lot of bad information on the internet so it pays to be quite diligent,” says Mortgage Choice spokeswoman Jessica Darnbrough.

Valuable sites include moneysmart.gov.au and comparison websites such as mozo.com.au packed with financial guides and calculators.

Property

Mortgage brokers do not charge their clients for advice about getting a home loan, saving for a deposit, property investment steps to take, rental yields and suburb information, or even how to make yourself look good on paper for a lender.

“When applying for a loan you need the best possible credit history to get the biggest discount open to you,” Darnbrough says.

Financial Planners

An initial meeting with a financial planner won’t cost you anything, may contain some free general tips and should give you an idea of how you can benefit from more detailed paid advice.

AMP financial planner Mark Borg says anyone trying to make complex financial decisions without professional help may be compromised by their personal experiences and not be open-minded.

“The first problem with going it alone is you don’t know what you don’t now,” says Borg, principal of MBA Financial Strategists.

Sometimes some “cold-hearted” professional advice is what you need, he says.

Family and Friends

The best source of free advice can be those closest to you, but always remember that their situation is different to yours so copying them completely probably won’t work.

Family and friends can give you recommendations about experts they have dealt with, or share lessons they have learned from their own financial experiences.

Money should not be a taboo subject.

Seminars

Free financial seminars offered by financial planners, real estate agents, mortgage brokers, law firms, super funds and government bodies such as Centrelink and Defence Housing Australia.

“You just have to open your eyes to the community announcements,” Darnbrough says.

But beware of property spruikers trying to flog a product. Just like the internet, you’ll have to sort out the useful information from the slick marketing spiels.

If there’s one thing you do this week it’s…

Start a savings plan.

To Do

Check out the best savings accounts on the market at comparison site Mozo.

Work out how much money you can afford to put away and not touch each week.

Set a savings goal for the next 12 months and check your progress each month.

The Savings

UBank USaver $50 a week + interest rate 4.02 per cent = $2661 in 12 months (if you also have a transaction account with the bank)

Save $100 a week in the same account = $5322 after 12 months.

Mother Loses Custody After Preventing Father Seeing Child

court judgment

Selfish separated parents who try to stop their children having a relationship with their former partners are having the kids taken off them by courts.

See Ridgely & Stiller [2014] FCCA 2668

A judge recently took the “drastic step” of ordering that a girl, eight, who had lived with her mother since her parents separated when she was 13 months, instead live with her father.

Changing the child’s primary carer from the mother to the father was the only way the girl could have a meaningful relationship with both parents, Judge Evelyn Bender decided.

The mother had for years interfered with her daughter’s court-ordered time with her father, who did not see his child for months at a time.

“The mother tells (the child) that her father is going to take her away and not allow her to ever see her mother again,” Judge Bender said.

The anxious little girl had told a Court family consultant it was her dream to be able to “love Mummy and Daddy at the same time”.

Brisbane family law specialist Deborah Awyzio said it was only in extreme cases that a child was taken away from one parent and put in the care of the other.

“This is a warning that parents need to be child-focused in every parenting decision they make and not self-focused,” Ms Awyzio said.

“People think it is extreme when a child is removed from the carer they have been with, but the focus is on the child’s right to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.”

In the recent case the court heard the couple, who separated in 2007 after five years together, had been in ongoing litigation over their daughter’s living arrangements.

The court heard the mother’s unremitting campaign to undermine her child’s relationship with her father distressed the child, who loved both parents.

Judge Bender said if the girl lived with her father she would be “allowed to be a child”.

She gave the father sole responsibility for the child’s health and education and allowed the mother to spend time with the girl on alternate weeks and during holidays.

Related Family Law Judgments