Jump to content
BANGKOK 21 November 2018 16:36
JohnGordon

Australia - Departure Prohibition Order

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

I agree that he should not be barred from leaviung Australia by a public servant who is unaccountable for that decision.

And I do not agree that he should be able to leave the country with a $45K debt to CSA (no matter how bad they are) without some from of commitment to pay/return.

 

BUT the decision should be made by an independent Court looking at all the evidence presented. It is wrong that this sort of decision can be made ad-hoc by an uncaccountable unknown public servant, and that the onus is on the barred person to then take the matter to a Tribunal in order to get a 'ruling' if that decision was valid. 

 

I wish someone would take the time to appeal to the High Court about this draconian fascist power that CSA has been given. Unlike in the USA where citizens can get Govt decisions overturned quickly by the Court system, in Australia the Govt hides behind multiple layers of unaccountable bureaucracy that the Courts cannot easily touch. 

 

IMO Australia is essentially a socialist state pretending to be democratic state.  But unlike in a true socialist state, the 4th estate (media) does have the power to get things changed. 

In Australia it is the people who have no real power to get Govt decisions changed, and the left-wing media in Aust always takes the side of the CSA recipient (female 90+%) and not the payer (male 90+%). 

 

You would pretty much make the public service unworkable if decisions cannot be made by the delegate and would have

to go to court.

 

Where doe it stop?  Will immigration officers be able to cancel visas and deport people or should that go to court?

ATO officers unable to audit tax returns?

 

From previous posts you make, you obviously have an axe to grind with most government departments.

 

I wouldn't compare our system to the American one.

Also, the US would have to be one of the most litigious countries in the world I reckon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Will27 said:

You would pretty much make the public service unworkable if decisions cannot be made by the delegate and would have

to go to court.

 

Where doe it stop?  Will immigration officers be able to cancel visas and deport people or should that go to court?

ATO officers unable to audit tax returns?

 

From previous posts you make, you obviously have an axe to grind with most government departments.

 

I wouldn't compare our system to the American one.

Also, the US would have to be one of the most litigious countries in the world I reckon.

I know them extremely well, both Aust and US systems of Govt (worked with/in both).  The US has their problems, but things like this are much easier to address.

 

Not an axe to grind but certainly dont like how they operate and how they deal with people who dont know the system - that is why I try to help - and I learn new things too.

 

I would push back and say should they be able to send you to gaol?  Obviously not.  The issue is where do you draw the line.

IMO the line should be short of being able to bar people from travelling overseas, without seeking approval from some form of Tribunal/Court.

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

I know them extremely well, both Aust and US systems of Govt (worked with/in both).  The US has their problems, but things like this are much easier to address.

 

Not an axe to grind but certainly dont like how they operate and how they deal with people who dont know the system - that is why I try to help - and I learn new things too.

 

I would push back and say should they be able to send you to gaol?  Obviously not.  The issue is where do you draw the line.

IMO the line should be short of being able to bar people from travelling overseas, without seeking approval from some form of Tribunal/Court.

 

I can see where you're coming from, but with regards to DPO's, it's not like they're issued if someone has missed a payment or 2.

 

They're usually issued as a last resort where the debt is extremely high (as in the OP's case) or where the payer has consistently

failed to make payments or made satisfactory arrangements to pay.

 

It's not as if they wake up one morning and get one in the mail.

 

Personally, I can see no issue with them so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/12/2018 at 10:32 AM, JohnGordon said:

The debt is $45k. If I had it I'd pay it.

 

The dispute is that I bought the ex a new car for $25k a couple of years ago on the basis it would be offset against the CSA debt. Then she turned around and refused to do this, saying she wanted both the car and the cash,  so I stopped making CSA payments and the debt has grown to $45k

That doesn´t sound like a very smart action. Even if you do not want to pay the 25K, you know that you definately need to pay the 20K over that amount.

However, I suppose that you do not have the economic capabilities to pay your child support every month. Based on that, after a lot of thinking.........How on earth do you think it will be to travel to Thailand, marry and have another family with possible children as an extra amount to pay for every month?

My suggestion to you is that you stand up and earn some money to pay off your debt before you consider another marriage and more negative consequenses. If you keep up with this, your pension is going to be very low, out of all the deductions the government will do on it due to bad backstabbing finances.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I can see where you're coming from, but with regards to DPO's, it's not like they're issued if someone has missed a payment or 2.

 

They're usually issued as a last resort where the debt is extremely high (as in the OP's case) or where the payer has consistently

failed to make payments or made satisfactory arrangements to pay.

 

It's not as if they wake up one morning and get one in the mail.

 

Personally, I can see no issue with them so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

I agree that we will probably agree to disagree and that is all good, but I have more to add to the situation as I see it.

 

CSA does not issue them as a last resort or when the payments reach any determined level. They can issue them when they are given information (in this case from the Ex) that leads them to believe that the payer is planning/thinking (is a risk) of leaving the country and thus avoiding their current or future CSA obligations. The CSA can stop anyone who has CSA payments from leaving the country, whether they are in debt or not - they only have to be lead to believe that the person is going to leave and not pay (eg a claim made by the Ex).  That this guy has a GF who is a citizen of Thailand, and has obviously told the Ex about it, is enough base evidence that he might abscond - and to tell his Ex that he is planning to go overseas soon to visit his GF's family with the intention to marry, while he has a debt, is enough final evidence. But they can stop anyone who has CSA payments from leaving the country - anyone - and they are not accountable for that decision. And appealing against it takes a long time.

 

The reality could be that he planned to leave and never pay CSA. But the reality could also be that he had no intention of doing that. The issue is a complaint and risk assesment by CSA, and they always take the negative view.  The Ex could be genuinely worried that he was going to leave with his Thai GF and never return,  or she could just be a bitch and just wanted to stop him getting remarried. Either way she has no onus on herself to prove the complaint or to prove the risk.  And that is the issue - there is also no onus on the public servant to show proof, and there is no opportunity for the payer to show otherwise. IMO that is wrong.  The onus should be on the CSA to provide some evidence to an independent Court/Tribunal, and the alleged 'absconder' should be given the opportunity to show otherwise. 

 

If you need a comparative example, I will provide the situation of a Domestic Violence Order (DVO).  When this was first introduced, it was a necessity but it was abused by many women as part of their divorce/seperation 'argument'.  Now it requires a Court Order to be issued, and there has to be some evidence provided - not just the word of the woman. Quote from the documents:  "You must show why a protection order is necessary or desirable to protect you and include specific examples of behaviour by the respondent."     http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/going-to-court/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-orders/what-is-a-domestic-violence-order   

Yes a woman can get a "temporary restraining order' quickly and easily, but only while the matter is referred to a Court and the decision is made regarding a DVO.  

 

The CSA will not easily give up their power, and any attempt to make them accountable to a Court (like for a DVO) will be resisted. The reality is that the CSA know it would be reasonable for them to be able to get a Temporary Departure Ban, and for them to then provide evidence of a suspected flight risk to a Court, but they will not do that unless/until they are forced to do it.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

I agree that we will probably agree to disagree and that is all good, but I have more to add to the situation as I see it.

 

CSA does not issue them as a last resort or when the payments reach any determined level. They can issue them when they are given information (in this case from the Ex) that leads them to believe that the payer is planning/thinking (is a risk) of leaving the country and thus avoiding their current or future CSA obligations. The CSA can stop anyone who has CSA payments from leaving the country, whether they are in debt or not - they only have to be lead to believe that the person is going to leave and not pay (eg a claim made by the Ex).  That this guy has a GF who is a citizen of Thailand, and has obviously told the Ex about it, is enough base evidence that he might abscond - and to tell his Ex that he is planning to go overseas soon to visit his GF's family with the intention to marry, while he has a debt, is enough final evidence. But they can stop anyone who has CSA payments from leaving the country - anyone - and they are not accountable for that decision. And appealing against it takes a long time.

 

The reality could be that he planned to leave and never pay CSA. But the reality could also be that he had no intention of doing that. The issue is a complaint and risk assesment by CSA, and they always take the negative view.  The Ex could be genuinely worried that he was going to leave with his Thai GF and never return,  or she could just be a bitch and just wanted to stop him getting remarried. Either way she has no onus on herself to prove the complaint or to prove the risk.  And that is the issue - there is also no onus on the public servant to show proof, and there is no opportunity for the payer to show otherwise. IMO that is wrong.  The onus should be on the CSA to provide some evidence to an independent Court/Tribunal, and the alleged 'absconder' should be given the opportunity to show otherwise. 

 

If you need a comparative example, I will provide the situation of a Domestic Violence Order (DVO).  When this was first introduced, it was a necessity but it was abused by many women as part of their divorce/seperation 'argument'.  Now it requires a Court Order to be issued, and there has to be some evidence provided - not just the word of the woman. Quote from the documents:  "You must show why a protection order is necessary or desirable to protect you and include specific examples of behaviour by the respondent."     http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/going-to-court/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-orders/what-is-a-domestic-violence-order   

Yes a woman can get a "temporary restraining order' quickly and easily, but only while the matter is referred to a Court and the decision is made regarding a DVO.  

 

The CSA will not easily give up their power, and any attempt to make them accountable to a Court (like for a DVO) will be resisted. The reality is that the CSA know it would be reasonable for them to be able to get a Temporary Departure Ban, and for them to then provide evidence of a suspected flight risk to a Court, but they will not do that unless/until they are forced to do it.  

 

 

If you read my post again, you will see I said they're usually issued as a last resort and I stand by that.

You seem to be of the opinion they're issued like parking tickets, they're not.

In this case, the OP is $45 000 in arrears.

 

With all of the other stuff you mention, including DVO's, I think you're pretty much clutching at straws TBH.

 

 

Edited by Will27

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Will27 said:

If you read my post again, you will see I said they're usually issued as a last resort and I stand by that.

You seem to be of the opinion they're issued like parking tickets, they're not.

In this case, the OP is $45 000 in arrears.

 

With all of the other stuff you mention, including DVO's, I think you're pretty much clutching at straws TBH.

 

 

I have a close friend who is now about $40K in debt to CSA and is slowly paying it off (he got made redundant and in one year his income was over $300K).

Most of it went into Super, and he has not worked since being made redundant - now on Newstart.

But CSA determined that his 'potential income' was huge based on that one year - he appealed (twice) and lost (twice).

He has not had a travel ban placed on him by CSA.

 

But lets agree to disagree - I think we both have strong views that wont change.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

CSA does not issue them as a last resort or when the payments reach any determined level. They can issue them when they are given information (in this case from the Ex) that leads them to believe that the payer is planning/thinking (is a risk) of leaving the country and thus avoiding their current or future CSA obligations. The CSA can stop anyone who has CSA payments from leaving the country, whether they are in debt or not - they only have to be lead to believe that the person is going to leave and not pay (eg a claim made by the Ex).

This is factually incorrect, a DPO can only be issued where all of 4 specified conditions are satisfied in section 72D of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 .

 

These conditions are:

  1. the relevant person has a child support liability,
  2. the relevant person has not made satisfactory arrangements to wholly discharge the liability,
  3. the Registrar is satisfied that the relevant person has persistently and without reasonable grounds failed to pay child support debts (as distinct from spousal maintenance debts),
  4. the Registrar believes it is desirable to make such an order to ensure that the relevant person does not leave Australia without wholly discharging the liability or making satisfactory arrangements to do so.

 

 

Edited by Surin13

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Surin13 said:

This is factually incorrect, a DPO can only be issued where all of 4 specified conditions are satisfied in section 72D of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 .

These conditions are:

  1. the relevant person has a child support liability,
  2. the relevant person has not made satisfactory arrangements to wholly discharge the liability,
  3. the Registrar is satisfied that the relevant person has persistently and without reasonable grounds failed to pay child support debts (as distinct from spousal maintenance debts),
  4. the Registrar believes it is desirable to make such an order to ensure that the relevant person does not leave Australia without wholly discharging the liability or making satisfactory arrangements to do so.

 I will elaborate on why your selective reading and interpretation of the Act is wrong, but I will state that I am aware of situations whereby exactly what I have said can occur, has occurred. I know of a guy who was going to have a holiday in USA, and his ex lodged a complaint and he was banned from leaving - he had to show that he was not a risk. I am also aware of others (through work)  who have had similar problems, following compaints/accusations by the payee (Ex).  If you miss or are late in making any payment, then you can be deemed to be a risk.

But as I cannot obviously give you names and dates, I will explain how this has happened.

 

1. the relevant person has a child support liability,

A person has a child support liability if (section 72E):

they have a registrable maintenance liability of the following kind:
a child support assessment (section 17(2)),
a liability to pay periodic child maintenance arising from a court order or court registered maintenance agreement or a collection agency maintenance liability (section 17(1)), or
a parentage overpayment order (3.1.2) (section 17A), or
a registrable overseas maintenance liability (section 18A(1), 18A(3)(a) or 18A(4)) (but not a spousal maintenance liability),
AND

the liability is a debt due to the Commonwealth under section 30 of the CSRC Act and at least part of the debt remains unpaid past the date it was due for payment.

 

If you have been assessed to have a CSA payment for any child, that 'debt' is applicable until that child reaches 18 years old (or past that of they stay at school) and any past late payment or delay (including if you have disputed any assesment). The issue is whether the CSA sees you as a risk for future payments,as well as current.  Obviously the smart thing to do would be to agree on some prepayments and have an agreed plan with CSA prior to you leaving for the holiday/trip, but they dont tell you that.

 

2.  the relevant person has not made satisfactory arrangements to wholly discharge the liability,

 

See above and read below.

 

Wholly discharged
A debt is wholly discharged when no part of it remains owing. A child support debt can be wholly discharged either by payment of the debt or by an administrative or judicial process that decreases the amount of the debt. Where either or both of these processes result in no part of the debt remaining payable, the debt is wholly discharged. A debt treated as uneconomic to pursue is not wholly discharged.

Satisfactory arrangements
Those arrangements that lead the Registrar to be satisfied that the debt will be wholly discharged are satisfactory arrangements. A common sense approach is required to determine whether arrangements are satisfactory in each case. A payment arrangement that effectively requires the presence of the debtor in Australia to function is not a satisfactory arrangement. Where the debtor has sold property and needs to leave Australia before settlement occurs, a section 72A notice (5.2.9) in relation to the known proceeds would be a satisfactory arrangement.

 

3. the Registrar is satisfied that the relevant person has persistently and without reasonable grounds failed to pay child support debts (as distinct from spousal maintenance debts),

This seems to be the one area where they (CSA) become very 'interpretive' of a situation, and ignore the basic rules (see below)

 

In considering the meaning of persistence in this context, the Registrar must be satisfied that a child support debtor has taken deliberate and repetitive or sustained action to avoid paying their child support debt. The Registrar must have regard to a number of factors when forming a view that the debtor's actions (or inaction) amount to persistent behaviour without reasonable grounds (section 72D(2)). The specific factors are:

the person's capacity to pay the debt or debts:
if the person has no capacity to pay the debt, their failure to pay cannot be regarded as persistent and without reasonable grounds,
the Registrar will take into account the debtor's statements about their financial position and any findings in relation to ability to pay, e.g. change of assessment decisions,
the Registrar will expect a debtor to use all available options to ensure the liability is correct and appropriate to their circumstances before claiming inability to pay the debt,
the Registrar is not restricted to considering the debtor's capacity to pay on the day that the DPO is to be issued as the Registrar is entitled to consider the capacity to pay the child support liability during the period of failure to pay,
the number of occasions on which action has been taken to recover such debts, and the outcome of the recovery action:
if the Registrar has taken no action (legal or administrative) to recover the debt, persistence is not present,
unsuccessful action may suggest that the debtor does not have the ability to pay the debt, but this is not to be regarded as conclusive evidence,
the number of occasions a debt was not paid by the due date (if the outstanding debt is for periodic child support or child maintenance):
where a child support debtor has arrears of child support from one periodic payment that was not paid on time and there is no other significant history of late payment, persistence is not present,
where a child support debtor has arrears of child support from one periodic payment that was not paid on time and there is a significant history of late payment, persistence may be present if the other relevant factors are satisfied,
where a child support debtor has arrears of child support made up of a number of periodic payments which were not paid on time, persistence may be present if the other relevant factors are satisfied,
the length of time the debt has been unpaid after the due date (if the outstanding debt arises from a parentage overpayment order),
such other matters as the Registrar considers appropriate:
these matters are not defined, and relate to the circumstances of the particular case,
officers making decisions on a DPO may consider other relevant factors, but must clearly document the factor, its relevance to the decision, and the impact it has on the decision.

 

 

4.  the Registrar believes it is desirable to make such an order to ensure that the relevant person does not leave Australia without wholly discharging the liability or making satisfactory arrangements to do so.

 

The Registrar believes it is desirable to make a DPO
The purpose of a DPO is to secure payment of a child support debt.

The Registrar will not make a DPO unless there are grounds for the reasonable belief that making the order will make payment of the debt more likely.

If a child support debtor is about to leave Australia (regardless of any plans to return) the Registrar will consider whether to make a DPO. The Registrar will generally make a DPO if satisfied on the balance of probability that the debtor has the ability to discharge their liability, and is either:

likely to fail to return to Australia without discharging his or her liability or making satisfactory arrangements to do so, or
likely to discharge his or her liability or make satisfactory arrangements to do so if a DPO is made.
A DPO may be appropriate if the debtor:

is transferring assets offshore, either directly or indirectly, e.g. borrowing funds overseas by securing Australian assets,
has resources (whether financial or otherwise) that would enable them to live offshore, e.g. family, assets, employment or a business,
is likely to discharge the debt or make satisfactory arrangements for discharge of the debt if a DPO is made.

 

That says it all and seems to be where they (CSA) base most of their decisons - when they place a departure ban.

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/child-support-guide/5/2/11

 

The whole Act needs to be looked into when viewing this matter, but what is really the issue is how CSA interprets that ACT - which parts they adhere to and which they overlook.  They are getting more and more 'abusive' in this regards IMO, and have been banning people who have very little real risk IMO.

 

Dont get me wrong, I agree that people with a CSA debt (past or future) should be able to be stopped from travelling overseas. And I did not say that they do it at the drop of a hat. But my overall point on this whole issue is that the decision should be made by a Tribunal or Court and not by a public servant. It should not be made based upon 'evidence'  that would not get accepted in a Court of Law, and the payer should be quickly given the right to their 'day in Court'.

 

The following has happenned many times, both fairly, but also unfairly too. The persons involved did not even know they had been banned - they were not given their day in Court to answer the allegation/order and therefore did not know.

 

https://bwbfamilylaw.com.au/child-support-enforcement-departure-prohibition-orders/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Bickering posts removed.   Stay on topic.    These sections of the forum are for passing on information, not arguing with other members.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/12/2018 at 4:54 AM, BritManToo said:

Point 1,

never give a former wife any information about your life, it's not their business and they always use it to harm you (loose lips sink ships).

 

Point 2,

this gives you a great (and valid) excuse not to have a boring and probably expensive trip to your prospective in-laws. There's nothing in Rayong you want to see.

   Why marry?  Any thing wrong with just living together?   Is your prospective Thai wife able to stay in Australia by....?  work visa?  student visa?  needs to marry an Aussie?  Just saying, be wary of the alligators out there in the moat before you get into more arrangements

Share this post


Link to post

I got a suggestion just to pay your child support and you will have no problem. It cost the Aussie government millions upon millions because of fathers not doing what is right and it is not the government responsibility to look after your child. It is yours. I am sorry mate but this time you are in the wrong. I take it you do work Am i correct. Th government only reacts to these kinds

of stuff because the system gets abused so many times.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sponsors
×